1 2026:CGHC:23004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.4574 of 2026 Rakesh Jain S/o Shri Gulabchand Jain Aged About 45 Years R/o C-110, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through ACB/ EOW Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 2nd Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.05.15 13:52:34 +0530 2 connection with Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station – ACB/EOW, Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 13(1)a r/w Sections 13(2),7(c) of PC Act, as also under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 1st bail application was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C No.2679/2026. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that under the “Hamar Lab Scheme” introduced by the Government of India for establishment of integrated health laboratories providing free diagnostic services, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSC) issued Tender No.182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 for procurement of medical equipments, consumables and reagents. It is alleged that the present Applicant, in conspiracy with others and with an intention to favour M/s Mokshit Corporation, participated in the tender process through his firm M/s Sharda Industries and deliberately quoted rates equal to or higher than those quoted by M/s Mokshit Corporation, thereby facilitating allotment of tender to the said firm and causing substantial financial loss to the State exchequer. Based on the aforesaid allegations, the present offences came to be registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant submits that the 3 Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in custody since 18.01.2026. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted regular bail to co-accused Shashank Chopra and Kamalkant Patanwar in SLP (Crl.) No.3295/2026 and SLP (Crl.) No.5375/2026 vide order dated 17.04.2026, co-accused Shubham Barmecha has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No.723/2026 and co-accused Dr. Anil Parsai has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.3074/2026. It is lastly submitted that conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and does not dispute the fact that the said co- accused have been granted bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the pre-trial detention, charge sheet has been filed and that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted regular bail to co-accused 4 Shashank Chopra and Kamalkant Patanwar in SLP (Crl.) No.3295/2026 and SLP (Crl.) No.5375/2026 vide order dated 17.04.2026, co-accused Shubham Barmecha has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No.723/2026 and co- accused Dr. Anil Parsai has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.3074/2026 and also considering that this is 2nd bail application, the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant-Rakesh Jain involved in Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station – ACB/EOW, Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 13(1)a r/w Sections 13(2),7(c) of PC Act, as also under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the 5 trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya