RAKESH JAIN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE
Decided on: 23-03-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:13810 2026:CGHC:13810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2679 of 2026 Rakesh Jain S/o Shri Gulabchand Jain Aged About 45 Years R/o C-110, Sector1, Devendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through ACB/EOW Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) …. Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.03.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with Sections 13(2), 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Government of India had introduced a scheme namely Hamar Lab Scheme to establish integrated health laboratories equipped with State of Art infrastructure these labs were the first refereal units with an object to provide free diagnostic services to the general public. The 2 2026:CGHC:13810 Chhattisgarh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited issued a tender bearing No.182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 for procurement of equipments as detailed in the said tender, the procurement was also for the requisite consumables as well as reagents. As per the tender process the bidders were required to submit along with pre- qualification bid, technical bid and also the price bid comprising of the list of the reagents to be supplied by the bidders. Based on the aforesaid bid comparative assessment was to be done by CGMSC. It is alleged that the applicant with an intention to support another firm i.e. M/s Mokshit Corporation and to enable him to obtain the tender, participated in it through his firm namely M/s Sharda Industries and in furtherance of the conspiracy submitted same rates or a higher rate than M/s Mokshit Corporation. In view of which M/s Mokshit Corporation obtained the tender and had caused severe loss to the state ex-chequer. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is not claiming bail on merits. The applicant is claiming a bail for the purposes of treatment of his mother namely Mrs. Sharda Jain who is suffering from stage 3b lung carcinoma (non-small cell Adenosquamous carcinoma) with multiple necrosis and is under chemo-therapy since 2013 and now has developed multiple RT cervical nodes and has been recommended surgical procedure and for the said purpose has received an appointment for the same on 30/03/2026 at Kokilaben Hospital, Mumbai. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the 3 2026:CGHC:13810 bail application of the applicant and submits that the present case reveals a well-planned economic offence causing wrongful loss of about Rs.411 Crores to the State exchequer. It is contended that reagents and medical equipment were procured by CGMSCL without following established government procedures, without proper assessment of institutional requirement, storage facilities, power supply, cold chain arrangements or budget approval. The requirement was allegedly determined through a mere table-top exercise without adopting the standard DPDMIS model or any institution-wise scientific analysis, resulting in procurement far in excess of actual need. Purchase orders for the entire quantity were issued within a short span of 26-27 days despite absence of storage infrastructure and near-expiry reagents were supplied at highly inflated rates. The tender specifications were allegedly designed to suit a particular company, leading to complaints from other bidders. Investigation against other officials is still ongoing, several co- accused public servants have been arrested and there exists a strong likelihood that the applicant, if released, may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 5. Learned State counsel also submitted that so far as the co-accused persons are concerned, the anticipatory bail applications and the regular bail applications preferred by the co-accused have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 15.09.2025 passed in MCRC No.6444/2025, 15.09.2025 passed in MCRC No.5110/2025, 07.10.2025 passed in MCRC No.5712/2025, 18.11.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1803/2025, 21.01.2026 passed in MCRCA 4 2026:CGHC:13810 No.1973/2025, 30.01.2026 passed in MCRC No.890/2026, 10.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1433/2026 and 23.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1839/2026, and one of the co-accused namely Shashank Chopda, involved in this offence had filed M.Cr.C. No. 3159/2025, which stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025, and thereafter, the said co-accused approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP(Crl.) No.9284/2025 and the Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing the parties and confirming the bail rejection order dated 13.06.2025, dismissed the same vide order dated 08.09.2025. Similarly, the other co-accused namely Rajesh Gupta, Abhishek Kaushal, Neeraj Gupta, and Avinesh Kumar, had filed anticipatory bail applications before this Court being MCRCA Nos. 317/2025, 321/2025, 328/2025 and 401/2025, which stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025. The said order was challenged by them by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5151/2025, 5177/2025, 5179/2025 and 5169/2025, and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed them vide order dated 08.09.2025, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that though the applicant has sought this bail application solely on the ground of medical treatment of his mother, but he record prima facie discloses a meticulously planned economic offence involving colossal loss of approximately Rs.411 Crores to the State exchequer, arising out of large-scale procedural 5 2026:CGHC:13810 violations in procurement, including absence of institutional assessment, deviation from prescribed governmental norms, and procurement of near-expiry reagents at highly inflated rates. The investigation is still at a crucial stage, and several aspects, including the role of other public servants and private entities, are yet to be fully unearthed. In such a scenario, the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with documentary evidence, or otherwise impeding the ongoing investigation cannot be ruled out. 8. Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that bail applications of similarly placed co-accused persons have already been considered and rejected by this Court vide orders dated 15.09.2025 passed in MCRC No.6444/2025, 15.09.2025 passed in MCRC No.5110/2025, 07.10.2025 passed in MCRC No.5712/2025, 18.11.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1803/2025, 21.01.2026 passed in MCRCA No.1973/2025, 30.01.2026 passed in MCRC No.890/2026, 10.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1433/2026 and 23.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1839/2026, and one of the co-accused namely Shashank Chopda, involved in this offence had filed M.Cr.C. No. 3159/2025, which stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025, and thereafter, the said co-accused approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP(Crl.) No.9284/2025 and the Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing the parties and confirming the bail rejection order dated 13.06.2025, dismissed the same vide order dated 08.09.2025. Similarly, the other co-accused namely Rajesh Gupta, Abhishek Kaushal, Neeraj Gupta, and Avinesh Kumar, had filed anticipatory bail applications before this Court being MCRCA 6 2026:CGHC:13810 Nos. 317/2025, 321/2025, 328/2025 and 401/2025, which stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025. The said order was challenged by them by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5151/2025, 5177/2025, 5179/2025 and 5169/2025, and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed them vide order dated 08.09.2025. 9. The instant bail application moved by the applicant clearly indicates that, being fully conscious of the fact that the bail applications of the co-accused persons have already been rejected on merits, and that such rejection orders have further been affirmed with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the applicant has now sought to invoke a different ground by filing the present application on the basis of the alleged ailments of his mother, namely Mrs. Sharda Jain. It is urged that she is suffering from serious illness and has been undergoing chemotherapy since the year 2013, and now has developed multiple RT cervical nodes and that a surgical procedure has been recommended to her by the Doctor. However, from the material placed on record, it appears that the medical condition of the applicant’s mother who is presently aged about 68 years, is not of such an emergent or sudden nature so as to warrant grant of bail in a case involving grave economic offences of significant magnitude. Rather, it prima facie reflects that the applicant, being aware of the difficulty in securing bail on merits in light of the earlier rejection orders, has chosen to press this ground as an alternative means to seek his release. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a ground, in the facts and circumstances of the present case involving serious allegations of 7 2026:CGHC:13810 fraud and large-scale financial irregularities, does not constitute a sufficient or compelling basis for grant of bail. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application of applicant – Rakesh Jain involved in Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with Sections 13(2), 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, is rejected at this stage. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 12. 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 Rajshekhar</div>