TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 {for short, the Act of 1988} against Officers of Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited Raipur (for short, the CGMSCL) and Officers of Health Department; Mokshit Corporation, Ganj Para Durg; CB Corporation, GE Road, Durg; Records & Medicare System HSIIDC, Panchkula Haryana; Shri Sharda Industries, Village Tarra, Tehsil Dharsiva Raipur and others. The said FIR was registered on the basis of a purported secret information received at the Police Station. The said FIR related to the alleged criminal conspiracy in relation to Tender No.182/EQP/CGMSC/2022-23 floated on 26.08.2022 by CGMSCL having been awarded to M/s Mokshit Corporation. The Applicant was arrested on 28.01.2025 in the predicate FIR and has been in custody in the predicate offence since then. 3. In relation to the scheduled offences in the aforesaid FIR, on 18.02.2025, ECIR/RPZO/07/2025 was recorded by the Directorate of Enforcement for investigation under PMLA. On 25.04.2025, charge-sheet under section 13 (1) A read with section 13(2), 7 (C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 120B IPC was filed in relation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atory bail application filed by the applicant. An application under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with paragraph 2 and 3(2) of the Scheme for appointment of Arbitrator by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court 2002 for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal has been filed on behalf of Mokshit Corporation against CGMSCL before this Hon'ble Court in relation to the disputes arising out of Tender No. 182, inter alia, of outstanding dues. After hearing both parties, vide Order dated 25.11.2025, this Hon'ble Court directed the Respondent/CGMSCL to file reply and the matter is pending before this Hon'ble Court. On 22.12.2025, ED again preferred an application before the learned Special Judge seeking permission to interrogate the applicant in relation to aforesaid ECIR on 23.12.2025 and 24.12.2025. Vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Court permission was granted to the ED to interrogate the applicant on 23.12.2025 and 24.12.2025. Once again upon an application filed by the ED, vide order dated 12.01.2026, the learned Special Court granted permission for Applicant's interrogation from 13.01.2026 to 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant stood concluded in ECIR/RPZO/07/2025 as the ED filed its Prosecution Complaint before the learned Special Judge (PMLA). 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there has been belated, unnecessary and successive arrest in ECIR/RPZO/07/2025. The applicant has been in jail since 28.01.2025 at the instance of the ACB in FIR No. 05/2025, PS ACB/EOW Raipur and now since 14.01.2026 in the instant ECIR/RPZO/07/2025 which has been recorded on the basis of aforesaid FIR No. 05/2025 PS ACB/EOW Raipur. The applicant was arrested by the ED on 14.01.2026 i.e. 11 months after commencement of its investigation into the instant ECIR. Clearly, the ED has strategically arrested the applicant in a manner to ensure his prolonged custody. The Applicant is a victim of a deliberate and systematic practice in the State of Chhattisgarh, whereby investigating agencies, particularly the ACB/EOW, Raipur and the Directorate of Enforcement, act in a coordinated manner to effect unnecessary, belated, and wholly unwarranted arrests. This calculated strategy is employed solely to circumvent judicial safeguards and to artificially prolong the applicant's incarceration, despite ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to arrest the applicant. ix. Thereafter, vide Order dated 22.12.2025, ED was again permitted to interrogate the Applicant for two days i.e., on 23.12.2025 & 24.12.2025. Interestingly, ED chose not to utilize the aforesaid permission at all and did not interrogate the applicant. x. Further the ED once again was granted permission, vide Order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Special Court (PC Act) to interrogate the Applicant from 13.01.2026 to 16.01.2026. However, after questioning him on 13.01.2026, the ED preferred an Application before the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA) seeking production of the Applicant which was allowed vide Order dated 14.01.2026. xi. However, closer to nearing 1 year of incarceration of Applicant in the predicate offence FIR and realizing that on the basis of his prolonged custody, the applicant will likely be granted bail, ED illegally arrested the Applicant on 14.01.2026." 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent ED deliberately chose not to arrest the applicant for almost 11 months after registration of ECIR. The following conduct of ED/events clearly reveals that arrest of the applicant was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Mokshit Corporation was Rs. 135 Crores, the firm has still incurred a huge loss as it has not been paid Rs. 258.19 Crores by the CGMSCL which is admittedly due to them. The ED has conveniently chosen to disregard the factum of overall loss having been incurred by Mokshit Corporation in Tender No. 182 and has somehow only considered those equipment's for the purposes of purported calculation of alleged proceeds of crime, as though the pending payments on goods and services were not purchased by Mokshit Corporation in the first place. In fact, the ED has erroneously assumed that pending payments which have not been made in more than 2 years by CGMSCL will be made in future. The entire case of the ED is based on future predictions and is entirely presumptuous. The ED's entire case is based on an erroneous formula whereby the purported purchase price of the medical equipment from its manufacturer along with its reagents seems to have been deducted from the amount received for such material by Mokshit Corporation from CGSMSCL as the "profit/excess payment" received by Mokshit Corporation. The ED has failed to apply its mind to the facts and has completely and maliciously overlo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Mokshit wrote to CGMSCL on 09.10.2023 objecting to continuous issuance of purchase orders in bulk despite stocked reagents having not been supplied to the warehouses. In fact, Mokshit itself paid a penalty of about Rs. 2 Crores which was 20% of the total amount of purchase order due to delay in supply of reagents, and in fact such purchase order was terminated despite delivery. It is surprising that the policy/decision maker/MD at CGMSCL have not been arraigned as an accused in the predicate case or questioned as suspect, as per the knowledge of the Applicant. This clearly demonstrates the pick and choose method of prosecution and that the Applicant has been selected as a scapegoat and prosecuted maliciously. Further, there is a long history of medical illness of the Applicant pertaining to the pain in nerves and spinal cord. The condition of the Applicant has only worsened during his custody because of lack of proper care by the Jail authorities. During his custody in the predicate offence, in compliance with Order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, the jail authorities took the Applicant to the DKS hospital on 16.07.2025 afternoon and after seeing the cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgetary provisions as well as the required infrastructure at Health Centres to store the re-agents. Acting on the purchase order received from CGMSCL, the applicant through his firm M/s. Mokshit Corporation supplied the medical equipment and reagents at exorbitant rate causing wrongful gain to himself and corresponding loss to exchequer. On the strength of the above-mentioned rate contract executed in the favour of M/s. Mokshit Corporation, the following orders were issued by the CGMSC for purchased of Reagent/medical equipment for the Hamar Lab to be set up at Health Centres: a) Purchase Order of Rs. 432.03 crores issued in favour of Mokshit Corporation for purchase of Re-agent. b) Purchase Order of Rs. 27.07 crores issued in favour of Mokshit Corporation for purchase of Medical Equipment. c) Purchase Order of Rs. 17.06 crores issued in favour of Mokshit Corporation for purchase of Medical Equipment. d) Purchase Order of Rs. 38.33 crores issued in favour of Mokshit Corporation for purchase of CBC (Complete Blood Count) machines. 10. It is further submitted that the investigation under PMLA has revealed that the applicant got the rate contrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MSCL with regard to the medical equipment and re-agents procured from the applicant's firm M/s Mokshit Corporation. Further the rate at which these items were procured by M/s Mokshit Corporation from the original suppliers were also procured to quantify the excess payment received by Shashank Chopda in comparison to fair market value of supplied medical equipment and reagents. Upon comparison of rate of supply by Mokshit Corporation to CGMSCL with selling price of original suppliers, it was discovered that till date Rs. 135.02 crore was received by M/s. Mokshit Corporation in excess to fair market value of medical items supplied by the applicant, which is PoC for the purpose of instant investigation under PMLA. The quantum of PoC is likely to increase upon advancement of investigation. 11. With respect to the role of the applicant, the evidence gathered during the investigation revealed that the applicant had influenced the public servants of the Directorate of Health Services and Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited by paying illegal gratification. In furtherance of this criminal conspiracy, and in collusion with certain public servants and private individuals, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., this petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the respondent places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1674}, Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486}, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region {(2015) 16 SCC 1}, Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement, {2024 SCC OnLine SC 317}, Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, {(2018) 11 SCC 46}, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2013) 7 SCC 439}; Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2013) 7 SCC 466}; Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement {(2015) 16 SCC 1}; State of Bihar and Anr. v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai {(2017) 13 SCC 751}, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. {(1987) 2 SCC 364}, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement; {AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4198}, Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi {SLP (Crl.) 7213 of 2027}, Union of India Through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, {Criminal Appeal No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs of investigation, despite searches having already been conducted in July and August, 2025 and despite the applicant being available in judicial custody throughout. During the said period, the respondent-ED had ample opportunity to interrogate the applicant and collect material. The record further reflects that on earlier occasions, despite alleged recovery of incriminating material during search operations, the applicant was not arrested. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. 16. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/ED with respect to existence of a prima facie case against the applicant and non-fulfillment of the twin conditions enumerated in Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002, it would be beneficial to take note of the said conditions, which reads as under: "45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-Not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), on person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord by the respondent to demonstrate that in the event of release on bail, the applicant is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 19. Without commenting upon the merits of the rival contentions and considering the period of detention undergone by the applicant, the completion of investigation qua the applicant, filing of prosecution complaint, grant of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the predicate offence and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 20. Let applicant, Shashank Chopda, involved in Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/07/2025 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, be released on bail on furnishing 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....