1 2026:CGHC:16719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 536 of 2026 1 - Alok Kushwaha S/o Shri V.S. Kushwaha Aged About 55 Years Firm- Mini Infratech, Firm Address- Pachpedi Naka, Akbar Complex, Raipur (C.G.), R/o House No. H.I.G. C/13, Shailendra Nagar Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Anju Kushwaha W/o Shri Alok Kushwaha Aged About 51 Years Firm- Global Network Solution, Firm Address- Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), R/o House No. H.I.G. C/13, Shailendra Nagar Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station E.O.W./A.C.B. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.04.2026 1. This 昀椀rst anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been 昀椀led by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 38/2016 registered at Police Station E.O.W./A.C.B. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, & under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that the applicants, along with other co-accused persons, played an active role in the procurement process of LCD/LED monitors under the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission during the years 2010–11 and 2011–12. The applicants, being associated with the concerned 昀椀rms, are alleged to have participated in the supply and pricing of the said equipment and deliberately in昀氀ated the rates, whereby monitors valued at approximately ₹57,950 per unit were procured at an exaggerated rate of about ₹1,26,500 per unit. It is further alleged that the applicants, in connivance with other accused persons, prepared and used forged and fabricated documents to give legitimacy to the in昀氀ated transactions and to secure wrongful 昀椀nancial gain. By such acts, the applicants are stated to have caused a wrongful loss of approximately ₹4,27,40,081/- to the State exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and others. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR has been registered, and hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no connection with the alleged o昀昀ence. It is further submitted that the applicants are private persons and the provisions relating to corruption are prima facie not applicable to them. The purchases in question were made strictly in accordance with the DGS&D rates through Agmatel, which held the valid rate contract, and the applicants’ 3 昀椀rms were merely authorized for marketing purposes without any 昀椀nancial involvement or bene昀椀t. It is contended that the applicants neither forged nor tampered with any document and the entire transaction was carried out as per the approved government rates, therefore no loss has been caused to the State exchequer. All the monitors were duly supplied, installed, and certi昀椀ed by the competent authorities and no grievance has been raised by the purchasing department regarding quality or execution. It is also submitted that the authorization letter was issued by the authorized representative of Agmatel and was relied upon by the applicants in good faith, and any dispute arising therefrom is of a civil or corporate nature. The allegation of illegal pro昀椀t is misconceived as the margin was consumed in legitimate expenses including transportation, installation, delayed payments, and warranty services. Lastly, it is submitted that the complaint is an afterthought arising out of commercial rivalry and does not disclose any criminal intent on the part of the applicants. Hence, he prays that the present applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the applicants were actively involved in a well-organized economic o昀昀ence in connivance with other co-accused persons during the procurement of LCD/LED monitors under the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. It is contended that the applicants deliberately in昀氀ated the prices of the equipment from the actual value to an exorbitant rate, thereby 4 causing huge wrongful loss to the State exchequer to the tune of ₹4,27,40,081/- and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and others. It is further submitted that forged and fabricated documents were prepared and used to give a semblance of legality to the fraudulent transactions, clearly indicating criminal conspiracy and dishonest intention. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the o昀昀ence, the magnitude of 昀椀nancial loss involving public funds, and the active role attributed to the applicants, it is prayed that the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the allegations against the applicants pertain to their association with the 昀椀rms involved in the procurement process, and their role is stated to be limited to marketing authorization. The material available on record indicates that the purchases were made as per the DGS&D approved rates and the equipment was duly supplied, installed, and certi昀椀ed by the competent authorities, with no grievance raised by the concerned department. The FIR in the present case is of the year 2016, and despite the lapse of considerable time, the custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear necessary at this stage. There is no prima facie material to establish that the applicants derived any direct wrongful gain or that any loss has been caused to the State exchequer. The applicants are private persons, have no criminal 5 antecedents, and the allegations appear to have elements of a commercial dispute which require detailed examination during trial. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Alok Kushwaha and Anju Kushwaha on executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting O昀케cer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicants will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicants will not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicants will appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be veri昀椀ed by the trial Court. (e) The applicants will not involve themselves in any o昀昀ence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan