Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 1 of 39
DLCT110011792026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)‑01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001179-2026
Bail Matter No.227/2026
Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Rangila Vs. State
FIR No. 07/2026
PS: ACB
U/s 7A/13(1)/13(2) PC Act
r/w S. 61(2), 316(5), 318(4)
& 238 of BNS, 2023
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the bail petition u/s
482 BNSS [previously S. 438 Cr.PC] seeking anticipatory
bail moved on behalf of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv
Rangila.
2. Arguments on the bail petition have already been heard on
behalf of both the sides, on 20-08-2026. I have duly
considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both
the sides, in the light of material available on
record. I have also gone through the authorities cited at
the Bar.
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused.
3. Ld. Sr. Counsel of applicant/accused,
inter alia, advanced
the following arguments:
-- 1 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 2 of 39
3.1 The applicant/accused is totally innocent and has
nothing to do with the offences alleged in this
case;
3.2 The applicant/accused is a reputed business man
and is running a proprietorship concern in the
name of M/s F-Med Devices, which is engaged in
the business of supply/ distribution and trading of
medical devices, diagnostic equipment and allied
healthcare products and thus, had legitimately
participated in tender procurement processes
undertaken by government departments, public
authorities and healthcare institutions, in an
ordinary course of his business;
3.3 The allegations appearing in the FIR are totally
misconceived, false and frivolous and it has been
registered on the basis of wrongful information
received by the authorities through ‘sources’,
whose sole purpose appears to malign the
reputation of the applicant/accused and affect his
business;
3.4 Mere participation by the applicant/accused in a
government procurement process, pursuant to
tender conditions prescribed by the procuring
Authority, does not by itself, give rise to any
criminal liability, and the applicant/accused has
throughout acted in
bona fide manner and purely
in business capacity through duly documented
-- 2 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 3 of 39
business and therefore, no
prima facie case is
made out against him;
3.5 The applicant/accused neither obstructed the
investigation, nor attempted to evade the process
of law. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, the
applicant/accused has been in United States of
America since 26.06.2026 and was not even
aware about the ongoing investigation of present
FIR. He submitted that he acquired knowledge of
present FIR only after NBWs issued against him
by this Court, was pasted on the wall outside the
gate of his place of business, on which, he
immediately contacted his counsel and on
instructions, Court file was inspected by counsel
and then, applicant/accused acquired knowledge
that Look Out Circular has also been issued
against him. He further submitted that no notice
for joining investigation, was ever served upon
the applicant/accused till 26.06.2026; and thus, no
adverse inference regarding deliberate non-
cooperation and/or evasion of process of law by
the applicant/ accused, should be drawn against
him. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the
applicant/accused has no intention to evade the
process of law and he is ready and willing to join
and co-operate in the investigation;
3.6 While relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of ‘
Asha Dubey v. State of
-- 3 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 4 of 39
Madhya Pradesh’ reported as 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 5633, Ld. Sr. Counsel argued that mere
issuance of proclamation u/s 84 BNSS, 2023
against the applicant/accused, would not operate
as an embargo against him to the grant of pre-
arrest bail under the law;
3.7 Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that though, the
applicant/accused is very much willing to join the
investigation and to co-operate with the
investigating agency, however, he apprehends
coercive steps, including his arrest at the hands of
the Investigating Agency. Ld. Sr. Counsel also
argued that arrest of applicant/accused would not
serve any purpose, as the entire case of
prosecution is documentary in nature; and the
entire documents are already available either with
the IO, or with the procurement agency and
therefore, custodial interrogation of applicant/
accused is not at all required;
3.8 Ld. Sr. Counsel vehemently argued that the
prosecution has deliberately concealed the
material fact from this Court that as per the terms
and conditions of Bid document in respect of sole
tender awarded to M/s F-Med Devices, which is
owned by applicant/accused, it was a Rate
Contract, and not a Contract for supply of certain
specific number of X-ray machines. While
elaborating the ambit and scope of a Rate
-- 4 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 5 of 39
Contract, Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that in such
type of contract, the prices are locked in; and the
buyer is not committed to buy any particular
quantity of specified item(s); and such contract is
normally valid for particular number of years,
during which, the buyer can place the order(s) as
per the actual requirements arising from time to
time; and the supplier is bound to supply the items
on such fixed price throughout the period, even in
case of variation in price(s) of such item(s) during
that particular period. Ld. Sr. Counsel further
submitted that as against the tender in question to
supply X-Ray Machines, no advance payment was
released to the successful bidder
i.e. M/s F-Med
Devices and thus, the entire payment was made
only after supply of those machines to the buyer/
government department;
3.9 Ld. Sr. Counsel further argued that it is nowhere
the case of prosecution that applicant/accused
either did not supply the requisite item
i.e.
portable X-Ray Machines to the concerned
Government Department; or that any advance
payment was released to him even before supply
of such item; or that there was any fabrication/
alteration in the terms and conditions of the Bid
document by him; or that there was violation of
any of the terms and conditions on the part of
applicant/accused;
-- 5 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 6 of 39
3.10 Ld. Sr. Counsel also argued that there is no
material whatsoever produced or shown to the
Court, in support of relevant allegations appearing
in the FIR that the applicant/accused had connived
with; or that the terms and conditions of so called
tainted tenders were pre‑decided; or that the
applicant/accused had been instrumental, in any
manner, in drafting specific terms and conditions,
as were favourable to him, in the Bid document;
or had any connection whatsoever with other
entities namely Technocrates; Raj Shree; Aashi
Surgical & Pharmaceuticals; and M Sahib & Sons
Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that there is only one firm
namely F-Med Devices, which is under the
proprietorship of applicant/accused; and the
Investigating Agency is unnecessarily trying to
connect him with other entities/companies without
any material being produced before the Court;
3.11 Ld. Sr. Counsel also submitted that the applicant/
accused had supplied portable X-Ray Machines to
the concerned department, with all his
bona fide;
and his complicity in the commission of offences
alleged in this case, cannot be inferred merely
from the fact that payment against the said tender,
was immediately released to him by the concerned
department. He submitted that payment was so
released by concerned department possibly with a
view to avoid its liability to pay interest on
-- 6 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 7 of 39
account of delay in release of payment as per
relevant clause appearing in the Bid document;
and thus, on that basis, no
mala fide intention can
be inferred or drawn against the
applicant/accused; and
3.12 Ld. Sr. Advocate further contended that in any
case, the applicant/accused undertakes to join the
investigation and to fully co-operate with the
Investigating Agency and to make him available
before the IO as and when so required. He further
contended that the applicant/accused is also ready
to furnish an undertaking that he shall not directly
or indirectly influence any witness; and/or shall
not tamper with any evidence; and/or shall abide
by every condition as may be imposed by this
Court, while granting pre-arrest bail. He,
therefore, urged that the petition may be allowed
and the applicant/accused may be granted
anticipatory bail.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
4. While opposing the application, Ld. SPP for State has,
inter alia, advanced the following arguments:
4.1 The allegations against the applicant/accused
relate to the offences involving corruption in
public procurement, criminal conspiracy,
cheating, forgery/ use of forged documents and
causing disappearance of evidence, involving
-- 7 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 8 of 39
government funds, running into several hundred
crores;
4.2 Investigation conducted so far discloses active
role of applicant/accused in the procurement
process, and not merely his passive participation
as a bidder;
4.3 The material collected shows his connection with
several firms/ entities, his alleged control over
entities standing in the names of other persons, his
direct interaction with manufacturers and his role
in securing supply orders through the said entities;
4.4 The applicant/accused has failed to join the
investigation despite repeated opportunities and
has remained unavailable to the Investigating
Agency, which resulted in issuance of NBW and
also initiation of proclamation proceedings under
Section 84 BNSS, against him;
4.5 The plea of applicant/accused that his absence
was neither intentional, nor deliberate is contrary
to the sequence of events recorded during
investigation. In this regard, it is submitted that
repeated efforts were made to locate and
apprehend him, including visits to his residential
premises, but he could not be traced. His house
was found locked and local enquiries failed to
establish his whereabouts;
-- 8 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 9 of 39
4.6 The applicant/accused is presently outside India
and the circumstances indicate a real possibility of
his evading the process of law. The mere
undertaking given by him to return or co‑operate,
cannot override his conduct subsequent to
registration of the FIR and issuance of coercive
processes;
4.7 The investigation has revealed that Government
funds running into hundreds of crores were paid
to the firms of the applicant/accused and that
substantial portions of such funds were thereafter
transferred through multiple accounts. The
financial investigation is still continuing and the
role of the applicant/accused in the ultimate
diversion of such funds is required to be
established;
4.8 The allegations are corroborated by the recoveries
made during searches, including the documents
and stamps connected with entities allegedly
controlled by the applicant/accused, as well as
statements of witnesses and co-accused persons.
Such material cannot be brushed aside at the stage
of considering anticipatory bail;
4.9 The grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant/accused, would create serious possibility
of destruction of electronic evidence, particularly
in view of the material showing that
-- 9 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 10 of 39
communications through WhatsApp were being
deleted immediately after use;
4.10 The present case involves a larger conspiracy
between public servants, private entities and
manufacturers. The role of applicant/accused has
to be examined in conjunction with the role of co-
accused persons namely Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga,
Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, Neeraj Chopra and other
persons connected with the procurement and
financial transactions; and therefore, custodial
interrogation of applicant/accused is necessary for
effective investigation;
4.11 Further, the applicant/accused cannot claim parity
with the arrested public servants, as he has not
submitted himself to the process of investigation;
and is presently avoiding his arrest. His conduct is
materially different from that of co-accused
persons who had joined the proceedings and faced
investigation;
4.12 The allegations in the FIR are not based upon a
single isolated procurement transaction. The
Investigation has revealed a similar modus
operandi in procurement of Portable X-Ray
Machines, Linen, C-Arm radiological equipment,
Anaesthesia Work Stations, medicines, surgical
items and manpower/ service contracts. The
material collected indicates a continuing pattern
-- 10 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 11 of 39
of manipulation of procurement processes and
diversion of Government funds;
4.13 Ld. SPP also submitted that as per the terms and
conditions of Bid documents, more particularly
the Bid document regarding supply of portable X-
Ray Machines awarded to M/s F-Med Devices
owned by applicant/accused, manufacturers alone
were eligible to participate in the tenders in
question. Ld. SPP pointed out that firm of the
applicant/accused was admittedly not the
manufacturer of such portable X-Ray Machines.
He contended that firm of applicant/accused was
also not fulfilling several other terms and
conditions of the Bid document, governing
eligibility conditions as provided therein. He
submitted that still, the tender in question was
awarded in favour of the firm of
applicant/accused, and same would clearly show
his complicity in the commission of offences
involved in this case;
4.14 Ld. SPP further submitted that applicant/accused
is not entitled to the discretionary relief of
anticipatory bail, particularly when he has
remained unavailable and after non execution of
NBW issued against him, proclamation
proceedings under Section 84 BNSS has already
been initiated against him; and
-- 11 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 12 of 39
4.15 Ld. SPP also opposed the application on the
ground that the investigation regarding complete
money trail and conspiracy is still underway and
the custodial interrogation of applicant/accused is
required to ascertain the role played by
applicant/accused in the commission of offences,
as also to ascertain his control and operation of
various bank accounts which have been used for
siphoning of the funds, opened in December,
2025, to identify the names of other
persons/entities/companies/public servants
involved in the commission of offences in this
case and the
modus operandi used by them.
5. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. SPP also
relied upon the following judgments:
5.1 ‘
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar &
Anr.’ reported as 2024 INSC 202;
5.2 ‘
Monu Kapoor v. Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence’ reported as 2020 (1) ADR 785;
5.3 ‘
State of M.P. & Anr. v. Ram Krishna Balothia &
Anr.’ 1995 SCC (3) 221
5.4 ‘
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement’,
reported as 2019 (9) SCC 24;
5.5 ‘
Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr.’,
bearing Criminal Appeal No.1834/2022, decided
on 21.10.2022;
-- 12 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 13 of 39
5.6 ‘
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed’, reported as
(1945) 47 BOMLR 245;
5.7 ‘
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)’
reported as AIR 2020 SC 831;
5.8 ‘
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)’ reported as
(2012) 8 SCC 730; and
5.9 ‘
State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma’ reported as
2014 (2) SCC 171
6. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, Ld. SPP urged that in
view of gravity of the offences, the nature of allegations,
the enormous financial implications, the specific role
emerging against the applicant/accused, the material
collected during investigation, his conduct in evading
investigation and the continuing need for custodial
interrogation, the present application deserves to be
dismissed.
Analysis & Conclusion
7. Before proceeding to deal with the rival contentions raised
on behalf of both the sides, it would be apposite to discuss,
in brief, the case of the prosecution, as borne out from the
FIR and the material available in the police file.
7.1 The complainant namely Sh. Atul Ramchiary,
Deputy Director (Vigilance), DOV, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, had filed a complaint against co-accused
namely Vinod Kumar Ranga, his
subordinates/associates, Rajiv Rangila
i.e. the
-- 13 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 14 of 39
applicant/accused and his associates, regarding
irregularities in the procurement of medicines,
surgical items and other consumable equipments,
in order to cause illegal gain to themselves and
illegal loss to the Govt. Exchequer, while alleging
therein,
inter alia, that the applicant/accused
namely Rajiv Rangila had been tying up with
manufacturers of medical items, fixing rates at
which they would supply medical items, fixing
kickbacks to be given back in cash. Fake
companies/firms with fake owners were created
by the applicant/accused and some of such fake
companies/firms are F Med Devices, Technocrats,
Raj Shree, Aashi Surgical and Pharmaceuticals;
and M Sahib and Sons Pvt. Ltd. These fake
companies were created in others’ names; but the
actual owner and operator of all these
companies/firms is alleged to be that of the
applicant/accused namely Rajiv Rangila;
7.2 The pre-decided manufacturer company declares
any of these companies so owned/operated by
applicant/accused namely Rajiv Rangila's, as its
Authorized Distributor. Thereafter, Tender
document with skewed restrictive specifications,
used to be prepared by applicant/accused namely
Rajiv Rangila in connivance with the
manufacturer company. These specifications and
tender terms and conditions were tailor-made as
-- 14 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 15 of 39
were suitable to the pre-decided company and
used to be supplied to co-accused Dr. Vinod
Kumar Ranga, HOO, CPA, who used to give it to
the Tender Committee. The specifications and
tender documents were being forcibly approved
by the Tender Committees, by using threats of
action against them, if they ever resisted signing
them. Such tender documents were then presented
by co-accused Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga, HOO,
CPA, to another co-accused namely Dr. Vatsala
Aggarwal, DGHS, who used to give approval to
these tender specifications, terms and conditions.
Co-accused Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga, HOO, CPA
used to upload the Tenders on either e-
procurement portal or GeM portal.
Fake companies of applicant/accused namely
Rajiv Rangila used to submit the bids in tender.
Turnover, experience and performance criteria
were kept at exorbitantly high levels, with intent
to discourage other bidders from participating in
the tender. Though, these companies of
applicant/accused namely Rajiv Rangila did not
possess any turnover, experience and
performance; but they were declared qualified in
the Tenders by co-accused officers. Rest of all
bidding companies/firms were disqualified in
technical evaluation without any ground.
Technical evaluation sheet was prepared by the
applicant/accused namely Rajiv Rangila on the
-- 15 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 16 of 39
same day and used to be given to co-accused
namely Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga, the then HOO,
CPA, which was being approved in few hours by
another co-accused Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS.
Financial bid used to be secretly opened on the
same day and the financial bid evaluation was not
being made public. Tender was being awarded to
the fake company of applicant/accused namely
Rajiv Rangila. Approval to place the order was
being given on the same day by co‑accused
Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS. Though, it was
mandatory that the work order had to be awarded
on GeM portal for tender floated on GeM portal;
and to be uploaded online, Purchase Order was
being issued on the same day manually, rather
than being issued on GeM portal; or being
published on e-procurement portal. Manipulation
was allegedly being done to the level that it was
shown to the public and other suppliers on
e-procurement portal; or GeM portal that Tender
is still under process, and is yet to be awarded and
status of tender was shown as
“Active” on online
procurement portal;
7.3 Medical items were supplied by Manufacturer
Company to CPA.Fake companies of
applicant/accused namely Rajiv Rangila used to
submit the bills against those supplies, to CPA
and the payment was being released in one or two
-- 16 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 17 of 39
days. It is also alleged that the Tenders, which had
since long been already awarded and for which
full payment had already been released, are still
visible on GeM portal as ‘
Active’ tenders; or
under process; or that the financial bid evaluation
was under process. With this modus operandi,
the general public and other companies could not
come to know whether the Tender floated by
CPA, had been finalized or not, and/or to whom
order was being placed and at what rates;
7.4 It is also alleged that the payments to medicine
supplying companies (which were previously
supplying medicines to CPA/DGHS in previous
years) had not been done by CPA for the last
2 years and the payment of tainted Tenders done
since October, in which the applicant/accused
namely Rajiv Rangila was involved, was made
either on the same day or on the next day. Tenders
to the tune of several hundred crores of rupees,
were allegedly awarded while using such
modus operandi. The FIR in question contains
details of some of such tainted Bids/Tenders like
purchase of X-Ray Machines, Procurement of Bed
Sheets, Pillow Covers and other linen items,
Procurement of C-Arm radiological equipment
and others.
8. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR in question came
to be registered u/s 7A PC Act r/w 61(2) BNS 2023, on
-- 17 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 18 of 39
02.06.2026, and prior approval u/s 17A of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018), was
obtained for conducting the investigation against the Govt.
Officials involved.
9. During investigation, efforts were made to recover the files
through which the alleged purchases were done by the
CPA/DGHS. Co-accused persons namely Dr. Vatsala
Aggarwal and Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga were directed to
find out those files and to hand over the same; but none of
those files could be recovered. Subsequently, the offences
u/s 13(1)/13(2) of POC Act r/w 316(5)/318(4)/238 BNS,
were also added during the course of investigation.
Further, documents/information from CPA/DGHS and the
office of DGHS, GeM and Banks have been taken; and the
Electronic gadgets have been seized from the office of the
CPA, DGHS and concerned banks. Further, details of the
payments made to the accused companies/Firms, were also
taken from the CPA, PAO concerned and the Bank, and on
analysis of these documents, it is allegedly found that
co‑accused persons namely Vinod Kumar Ranga, HOO,
CPA and Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS, had hatched a
criminal conspiracy with the applicant/accused, and other
known & unknown persons; floated Bid to procure
portable X-Ray machine, for which they prepared the Bid
documents and uploaded the same on GeM portal, with
information that only one X-Ray machine was to be
bought, so that such information may discourage the
manufacturers and importers from participating in the bid,
-- 18 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 19 of 39
seeing the small quantity. However, they left the bidding
process in between, and gave supply order to the
applicant/accused Rajiv Rangila’s firm namely M/s F-Med
Devices. Moreover, it was allegedly well within the
knowledge of co-accused persons that the required
infrastructure was not enough with the clinics and the
hospitals for use of 448 such Portable X-Ray machines,
still they purchased 448 such Portable X- Ray machines at
an exorbitant price of Rs.38 lakh each, whereas, the
applicant/accused’s Firm had allegedly purchased the same
for an amount of approximately Rs.14,92,000/- each
(inclusive of Al Software) from the manufacturer namely
M/s Prognosys Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd., which has been
confirmed by the officer of M/s Prognosys Medical
Systems Pvt. Ltd. In this manner, it is alleged that the
accused persons, including the applicant/accused herein,
have caused huge loss to the Govt. exchequer.
10.
Likewise, the accused persons, including the
applicant/accused, are alleged to have committed similar
crime in purchase of Linen, for which supply order was
again given to one M/s Sangam Gram Udyog Samiti,
which is allegedly controlled by the applicant/accused.
During the course of arguments, Ld. SPP of State also
informed the Court that during investigation, it has been
found that similar
modus operandi is used to cheat and
embezzle Govt. Funds in purchase of C‑Arm Radiological
Equipment and other consumable medicines and surgical
items.
-- 19 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 20 of 39
11. Not only this, the investigation has also revealed that files
pertaining to Bids for purchase of X-Ray Machines,
C‑Arm Machines, Hingh/Mid End Anaesthesia Work
Station, Linen and other items, containing all the relevant
details such as details of the entities, which had raised the
demands; the officials who had compiled the same and had
initiated the procurement process, have gone missing.
Those files also contained details of Members of different
Teams/Committees, who had formulated the Bids
documents and the terms and conditions for the Bidders,
Team/Committee for finalizing the specification of items
to be purchased, Team/Committee for finalization of
Technical evaluation and Financial evaluation. None of
those files could be traced out and it is alleged that the
applicant/accused, in criminal conspiracy with co accused
persons and other unknown persons/entities, intentionally
destroyed those files, thereby causing disappearance of
crucial evidences of the crimes committed by them.
12. Further, the documents and information supplied by CPA,
PAO and different banks, also suggest that the amounts
were immediately transferred into the accounts of
Firms/companies of the applicant/accused, after they
supplied the items to the DGHS, whereas the amounts of
other vendors are kept pending for over two years of
supply of items by them. It is also alleged that the amounts
from these accounts, were immediately transferred into
hundreds of other accounts and those account holders
entities are not even related to the items supplied to the
-- 20 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 21 of 39
CPA/DGHS. From those accounts, money to the tune of
crores of rupees, has been withdrawn either in cash; or
were further transferred to other accounts, to siphon off the
Govt. funds.
13. Thus, it is quite apparent that the tenders in question used
to be uploaded for limited quantity of items/equipments;
and later on, purchase orders in respect of huge quantity
thereof used to be placed upon few selective
entities/companies and that too manually and not through
GeM portal, while by-passing the requisite procedure and
rules prescribed in that regard. It was possibly done with a
view to discourage the manufacturers and entities to
participate in the bid process. Not only this, the tender
documents were allegedly got forcibly approved from
Members of various Committees, and supply orders were
being issued to only few selective entities, including the
entities/ firms of applicant/accused namely Rajiv Kumar @
Rajiv Rangila, possibly with an oblique motive to give
undue favour to those entities. Not only this, the bills
issued by suppliers for the items supplied against the
Tenders in question, were also allegedly got approved and
payments against those bills were allegedly released within
no time. On the other hand, there were various bills
submitted by other suppliers against other Tenders, which
were allegedly pending payments for the last more than
two years. Again, it would be anybody’s guess as to what
were those compelling reasons to do so.
-- 21 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 22 of 39
14. Moreover, the status of the Tenders in question, was
continued to be shown as
‘active’ on GeM Portal, despite
the fact that supply orders against those Tenders had
already been issued to those few selective entities and even
payments in respect of the bills received against the
Tenders in question, had already been released. In this
regard, IO also drew attention of this Court towards reply
dated 15-06-2026 purportedly issued by GeM, wherein,
it is categorically mentioned that as per data available on
GeM Portal, F Med Devices (which
indisputably belongs
to the applicant/accused namely Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv
Rangila), had not obtained any purchase orders/supply
orders through GeM Portal. In case, co-accused officers
had followed the procedure and the route while processing
the Tenders in question, and in case they did not act in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched between them,
and the applicant/accused herein, then there was no
occasion for them to issue the Purchase Orders manually
with the firm/fake entities/companies belonging to and/or
indirectly controlled by the applicant/accused; and/or to
show the status of those Tenders as
‘active’ on GeM
Portal, despite the fact that supply orders against those
Tenders had already been allegedly issued and even
payments in respect of bills issued against them, had
already been released. Moreover, the procedure regarding
procurement of items through GeM Portal, expressly
provides that Purchase Order is placed upon Lowest
Bidder (L-1); and once the supply is made by such L-1,
then, the bills are generated through GeM Portal itself, and
-- 22 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 23 of 39
are submitted with the concerned government department
for payment, which procedure was also allegedly not
followed in respect of the Tenders in question.
15. The argument advanced on behalf of applicant/accused
that his custodial interrogation is not required in the given
facts and circumstances, is wholly devoid of any merit.
Having considered the relevant material available in the
police file, the Court is entirely in agreement with the
submissions made on behalf of State that custodial
interrogation of applicant/accused may be required in the
given facts and circumstances of the present case. As per
the investigation carried out so far, several articles,
including a slip/pad bearing calculations and seal of
‘M/s M. Sahib and Sons Pvt. Ltd.’, as well as a stamp
bearing the words
“For M/s M. Sahib and Sons Private
Limited Director/Authorized Signatory” were recovered
during the search carried out at the residential premises of
present applicant/accused. Not only this, copy of an e-Way
Bill bearing stamp of ‘
M/s M. Sahib and Sons Pvt. Ltd.’
was also purportedly recovered during the search of Luv-
Kush Farm House, situated at Mangalpur Village, near ITI
Chowk, Karnal, Haryana, allegedly belonging to the
applicant/accused. In this backdrop, the contention raised
on behalf of applicant/accused that he has no concern
either with M/s M. Sahib and Sons Pvt. Ltd., or with any
other entity/company, is
prima facie can not be accepted at
this stage. In any case, the recovery of these articles from
the residential premises/ firm house of the
-- 23 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 24 of 39
applicant/accused, would constitute significant
circumstances indicating his control/ operation of said
company.
16. Apart from above, the investigation has also revealed that
two other firms namely M/s Red Mamba Force Pvt. Ltd.,
and M/s Sangam Gram Udyog Samiti, are registered in the
names of close associates of applicant/accused and were
being allegedly operated at the addresses connected with
him, and were allegedly under his control/operation. Such
circumstances would also necessitate custodial
interrogation of the applicant/accused in the present case.
17. Further, investigation has also shown that large number of
bank accounts, were opened in the month of December,
2025
i.e. in the recent past, which were allegedly used in
order to siphon off the funds. According to IO, analysis of
these bank accounts, has revealed that after receipt of
payments against the tenders in question into bank
accounts of firms/ companies, which are either owned, or
are under the control of present applicant/accused, such
amounts were immediately transferred into more than
hundred of accounts belonging to his family members and
other entities/company, wherefrom, such amounts were got
further transferred into several hundred other accounts; and
there had been withdrawals of huge amounts in cash from
such bank accounts. Thus, it is the applicant/accused, who
can explain the reasons and circumstances under which
such huge amounts were purportedly transferred into more
than hundred of accounts belonging to his family members
-- 24 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 25 of 39
and other entities and for what purpose. Hence, the
applicant/accused shall be required for his custodial
interrogation for this purpose also.
18. Furthermore, the custodial interrogation of
applicant/accused shall also be required, in order to afford
an opportunity to the Investigation Agency to make sincere
efforts to recover the missing files/ documents relating to
procurement of medicines, surgical items and other
consumable equipments against the tainted Tenders in
question, as also to find out the
modus operandi used in the
commission of offences involved in this case, and also to
ascertain the involvement, if any, of other public servants/
government officials, and/or private persons/ entities/
companies and the roles allegedly played by them in the
commission of offences involved in this case.
The custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused would
also be required by the Investigating Agency to make an
effort to recover documentary/electronic/digital evidences,
pursuant to the information, if any, as may be provided by
the applicant/accused, as also for the purpose of his
confrontation with the collected documentary/electronic/
digital evidences, in order to establish the sequences of
events, source and destination of funds, mode & manner of
operation of various firms/ companies bank accounts, and
to unearth the entire conspiracy allegedly hatched between
the private/public servants. In view thereof, the contention
raised on behalf of applicant/accused that since entire
evidence is documentary in nature and is either already in
-- 25 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 26 of 39
the custody of IO or in the custody of procurement agency,
his custodial interrogation is not required, is not tenable in
the eyes of law.
19. In the case of
Srikant Upadhyay (
supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed and held as under:
“xxxx
18. Taking note of the aforesaid facts with respect to the
issuance of summons, warrants and subsequently the
proclamation, a conjoint reading of Sections 19, 20 and
21, IPC containing the terms “Judge”, “Court of Justice”
and “Public Servant” and Sections 174 and 174A, IPC can
make them liable even to face further proceedings. Same
is the position in case of non-attendance in obedience to
proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC.
19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and position,
we will refer to certain relevant decisions. In Savitaben
Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat5, the High
Court of Gujarat observed thus: -
“9. Filing of an Anticipatory Bail Application by the
petitioners-accused through their advocate cannot be
said to be an appearance of the petitioners-accused
in a competent Court, so far as proceeding initiated
under Section 82/83 of the Code is concerned;
otherwise each absconding accused would try to
create shelter by filing an Anticipatory Bail
Application to avoid obligation to appear before the
court and raises the proceeding under Section 83 of
the Code claiming that he cannot be termed as an
absconder in the eye of law. Physical appearance
before the Court is most important, if relevant
scheme of Sections 82 and 83, is read closely.”
(underline supplied)
xxxx xxxx xxxx
24. We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in
many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the
question of its grant should be left to the cautious and
judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts
and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be
very cautious as the grant of interim protection or
-- 26 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 27 of 39
protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to
a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to
have held that the Court shall not pass an interim
protection pending consideration of such application as the
Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an
individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such
orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate,
when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the
applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power.
Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to
grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the
interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously,
defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such
grant.
xxxx”
20. In the case of Lavesh (
supra), Hon’ble Apex Court, while
considering the scope of granting relief u/s 438 vis-à-vis to
a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed
offender in terms of S.82 of the Code, has held as under:
“12. From these materials and information, it is clear that
the present appellant was not available for interrogation
and investigation and was declared as “absconder”.
Normally, when the accused is “absconding” and declared
as a “proclaimed offender”, there is no question of
granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person
against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding
or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of
warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail.” It is clear from the above decision that
if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender
in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the
relief of anticipatory bail. In the case on hand, a perusal of
the materials i.e., confessional statements of Sanjay
Namdev, Pawan Kumar @ Ravi and Vijay @ Monu
Brahambhatt reveals that the respondents administered
poisonous substance to the deceased. Further, the
statements of witnesses that were recorded and the report
of the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur dated
21.03.2012 have confirmed the existence of poison in milk
rabri. Further, it is brought to our notice that warrants were
issued on 21.11.2012 for the arrest of the respondents
herein. Since they were not available/traceable, a
-- 27 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 28 of 39
proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was issued on
29.11.2012. The documents (Annexure-P13) produced by
the State clearly show that the CJM, Chhindwara, M.P.
issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of both the
respondents/accused under Section 82 of the Code to
answer the complaint on 29.12.2012. All these materials
were neither adverted to nor considered by the High Court
while granting anticipatory bail and the High Court,
without indicating any reason except stating “facts and
circumstances of the case”, granted an order of
anticipatory bail to both the accused. It is relevant to point
out that both the accused are facing prosecution for
offences punishable under Section 302 and 120B read with
Section 34 of IPC. In such serious offences, particularly,
the respondents/accused being proclaimed offenders, we
are unable to sustain the impugned orders of granting
anticipatory bail. The High Court failed to appreciate that
it is a settled position of law that where the accused has
been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with
the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory
bail.”
21. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Pradeep Sharma (
supra).
22. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited on behalf of
applicant/accused. However, it is
trite law that there cannot
be any straight-jacket formula while deciding the bail
applications and each bail application needs to be decided
on the merits of the facts and circumstances of each case.
The case as relied upon by Ld. Counsel of
applicant/accused, is thus distinguishable on the facts and
circumstances of the present case, for the reasons already
noted hereinbefore.
23. Apart from above, the entire conduct of the
applicant/accused, as reflected from the record, is shown to
be
mala fide, inasmuch as he fled away from India, and is
-- 28 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 29 of 39
allegedly available in United States since 26.06.2026, as
claimed in para no.5 of the bail petition. Interestingly, the
applicant/accused has neither stated in the bail petition, nor
explained during the course of arguments, as to why, for
what purpose and under what circumstances, he had left
India on 26.06.2026. Not only this, he has also failed to
offer any explanation as to why he preferred to stay over
there and has not returned back to India till date.
24. At this juncture, it may be noted here that since, the
applicant/accused had failed to join investigation with the
Investigating Agency, IO had approached this Court
seeking issuance of NBWs against him and accordingly,
NBWs were issued against him, vide order dated
07.07.2026, returnable for 22.07.2026, on which date,
fresh NBWs were directed to be issued against him at his
all available addresses, returnable for 03-08-2026.
Considering the fact that NBWs of applicant/accused could
not be executed despite several attempts made by the
Investigating Agency and after considering the
submissions made on behalf of State that he is deliberately
and intentionally evading the process of law, the Court had
proceeded to issue Proclamation u/s 84 BNSS, 2023
against him, returnable for 14.09.2026.
25. Even as per the admitted case of applicant/accused, notice
dated 02.07.2026 for joining investigation, was pasted at
the gate of his business premises. Despite having come to
know about said notice, he preferred not to join the
investigation. It is nowhere his case that he ever submitted
-- 29 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 30 of 39
any written request/ communication to the Investigating
Officer, thereby informing him that he was away from
India and/or was willing to join investigation of the case,
after any particular date.
26. Not only this, it is the own case of applicant/accused that
NBWs issued by the Court, were pasted on wall outside
the gate of his business premises and after coming to know
about it, he had contacted his counsel, who, upon
inspection of the Court file, came to know that LOC had
already been issued against him. Though, the date of
acquiring knowledge about issuance of NBWs, the date of
contacting counsel, and the date when counsel informed
him regarding issuance of LOC against him, are
conspicuously found missing in the entire bail petition,
nevertheless, the applicant/accused has failed to offer any
reason as to why he still preferred to remain as mute
spectator, even after coming to know about the issuance of
NBWs against him; and as to why he did not apply for
cancellation of his NBWs, or for withdrawal of LOC, by
taking recourse to appropriate legal remedies available to
him under the law. In any event, the above noted conduct
of applicant/accused, would clearly negate the contention
made on his behalf that he was willing to join the
investigation, or that no adverse inference may be drawn
against him for not joining the investigation in this case, or
that he is not evading the process of law.
27. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that
Proclamation u/s 84 BNSS, 2023 has already been issued
-- 30 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 31 of 39
against the applicant/accused, which is returnable for
14.09.2026. The applicant/accused has repeatedly failed to
join the investigation and his entire conduct has been
shown to be that of non co-operation. Instead of providing
due co-operation to the Investigating Agency, he has
preferred to flee away from this country for unknown
reasons.
28. The legal position dealing with the applications seeking
anticipatory bail, is well settled now. In the case of Ram
Krishna Balothia (
supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held as
under:
“xxxx
7. We have next to examine whether Section 18 of the said
Act violates, in any manner, Article 21 of the Constitution
which protects the life and personal liberty of every person in
this country. Article 21 enshrines the right to live with human
dignity, a precious right to which every human-being is
entitled those who have been, for centuries, denied this right,
more so. We find it difficult to accept the contention that
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral
part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision
similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code.
The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended
introduction of provision for grant of anticipatory ball. It
observed:-
“We agree that this would be a useful advantage.
Though we must add that it is in every exceptional
cases that such power should be exercised”.
In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was
incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure
Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of
the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is
conferred only on a Court of Sessions or the High Court.
Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right.
It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the
coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered
as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution and
its non-application to a certain special category of offences
cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.
xxxx”
-- 31 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 32 of 39
29. In the cited case of Monu Kapoor (
supra), Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has held as under:
“xxxx
24. We should keep in mind that a person who wants that
the process of law should be followed, he should also
follow and submit to the process of law. Normally, the law
does not countenance that the person who fails to submit
to the processes of law should be granted any relief by the
Courts. If it is allowed to happen, it will send a wrong
message to the society. The facts of the case demonstrate
that the petitioner, despite having been served with various
show cause notices, has preferred not to join the
investigation. The questions which arise for consideration,
in these circumstances, are (i) if the accused has joined the
investigation and he is not fully cooperating with the
investigating agency and/or (ii) a person does not join the
investigation on false pretexts or sham/farce excuses, then
what should be done. To my mind, where the accused has
failed to join the investigation on false pretexts or
sham/farce excuses despite being given opportunities
and/or is not fully cooperating with the investigating
agency, the anticipatory bail application of such accused
should be rejected, solely on this ground.
xxxx”
30. In the case of Sumitha Pradeep (
supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
“The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an
anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima
facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the
nature of the offence should be looked into along with the
severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be
one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However,
even if custodial interrogation is not required or
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.”
31. In the case of P. Chidambaram (
supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
72. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the
investigation intended to secure several purposes. There
may be circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts and
relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may
hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a
balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom
-- 32 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 33 of 39
and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the
accused as to the material so far collected and to collect
more information which may lead to recovery of relevant
information. In State Rep. By The CBI v. Anil Sharma
(1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme Court held as under:-
“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who
is well ensconced with a favourable order under
Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations
and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well
protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order
during the time he is interrogated. Very often
interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a
mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person
being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be
advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The
Court has to presume that responsible police officers
would conduct themselves in a responsible manner
and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring
offences would not conduct themselves as
offenders.”
73. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303, it was held as under:-
“19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure for several purposes.
The accused may have to be questioned in detail
regarding various facets of motive, preparation,
commission and aftermath of the crime and the
connection of other persons, if any, in the crime.
There may be circumstances in which the accused
may provide information leading to discovery of
material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his
freedom in order to enable the investigation to
proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses
and persons connected with the victim of the crime,
to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and
order in the locality. For these or other reasons,
arrest may become an inevitable part of the process
of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
cannot be gone into in an application under Section
438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well
-- 33 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 34 of 39
defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference
by the court in the process of investigation is
limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with
the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the
accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order
restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an
application under Section 438 of the Code will
amount to interference in the investigation, which
cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the
Code.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
76. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more
so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences
stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric
of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok
Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in
economic offences, the accused is not entitled to
anticipatory bail.
77. xxxx
78. Observing that economic offence is committed with
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless
to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat
v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC
364, it was held as under:-
“5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the
State are not brought to book. A murder may be
committed in the heat of moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence
to the community. A disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the
system to administer justice in an even-handed
manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
which view white collar crimes with a permissive
eye unmindful of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest…..”
79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class
apart and need to be visited with different approach in the
matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013)
7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:-
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-
-- 34 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 35 of 39
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy
of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations.” [underlining added]
80. xxxxx
81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation
may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also
the materials which might have been concealed. Success
in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows
that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of
anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having
regard to the materials said to have been collected by the
respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the
stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
xxxxx”
32. In the case of Sushila Aggarwal (
supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed and held as under:
“xxxx
19. A great deal has been said by the High Court on the
fifth proposition framed by it, according to which, inter
alia, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised
if the investigating agency can make a reasonable claim
that it can secure incriminating material from information
likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. According to the High Court, it is the
right and the duty of the police to investigate into offences
brought to their notice and therefore, courts should be
careful not to exercise their powers in a manner which is
calculated to cause interference therewith. ….. An order of
anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or
indirectly, take away from the police their right to
investigate into charges made or to be made against the
person released on bail. In fact, two of the usual conditions
-- 35 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 36 of 39
incorporated in a direction issued under Section 438(1) are
those recommended in subsection (2)(i) and (ii) which
require the applicant to cooperate with the police and to
assure that he shall not tamper with the witnesses during
and after the investigation. While granting relief under
Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed
under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted
investigation. One of such conditions can even be that in
the event of the police making out a case of a likely
discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the
person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police
custody for facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and when
the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution
to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in
regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of
information supplied by a person released on bail by
invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P.
v. Deoman Upadhyaya [AIR 1960 SC 1125 : (1961) 1
SCR 14, 26 : 1960 Cri LJ 1504] to the effect that when a
person not in custody approaches a police officer
investigating an offence and offers to give information
leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the
charge which may be made against him, he may
appropriately be deemed so have surrendered himself to
the police. The broad foundation of this rule is stated to be
that Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does
not contemplate any formality before a person can be said
to be taken in custody: submission to the custody by word
or action by a person is sufficient. For similar reasons, we
are unable to agree that anticipatory bail should be refused
if a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the
police custody under Section 167(2) of the Code is made
out by the investigating agency.
20.xxxx
21.
The High Court says in its fourth proposition that in
addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the
petitioner must make out a “special case” for the exercise
of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This, virtually,
reduces the salutary power conferred by Section 438 to a
dead letter. In its anxiety, otherwise just, to show that the
power conferred by Section 438 is not “unguided or
uncanalised”, the High Court has subjected that power to a
restraint which will have the effect of making the power
utterly unguided. To say that the applicant must make out
a “special case” for the exercise of the power to grant
anticipatory bail is really to say nothing. The applicant has
undoubtedly to make out a case for the grant of
anticipatory bail. But one cannot go further and say that he
must make out a “special case”. We do not see why the
-- 36 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 37 of 39
provisions of Section 438 should be suspected as
containing something volatile or incendiary, which needs
to be handled with the greatest care and caution
imaginable. A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably
takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to
flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial
discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in
regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be
used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of
the context in which the discretion is required to be
exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences
of its use, is the hallmark of a prudent exercise of judicial
discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power
to grant anticipatory bail.
22. By proposition No. 1 the High Court says that the
power conferred by Section 438 is “of an extraordinary
character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional
cases only”. It may perhaps be right to describe the power
as of an extraordinary character because ordinarily the bail
is applied for under Section 437 or Section 439. These
sections deal with the power to grant or refuse bail to a
person who is in the custody of the police and that is the
ordinary situation in which bail is generally applied for.
But this does not justify the conclusion that the power
must be exercised in exceptional cases only, because it is
of an extraordinary character. We will really be saying
once too often that all discretion has to be exercised with
care and circumspection, depending on circumstances
justifying its exercise. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it
and subject the wide power conferred by the legislature to
a rigorous code of selfimposed limitations.
xxxxx”
33. There is another reason, which disentitles the
applicant/accused from seeking the concession of pre-
arrest bail in this case. In the supporting affidavit filed
along with the bail petition, applicant/accused has
disclosed that he is also involved in one more criminal case
arising out of FIR 206/2026 with PS Laxmi Nagar.
Pertinently, the applicant/accused has neither disclosed the
offences in respect of which said other FIR is got
registered at PS Laxmi Nagar, nor copy thereof is annexed
along with the bail petition. However, Ld. SPP, on
-- 37 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 38 of 39
instructions, had informed the Court that said FIR is in
respect of offences falling under the category of sexual
offences.
34. There is yet another reason, which persuades this Court not
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. As
pointed out on behalf of State, the applicant/accused used
to delete communication in the form of Whatsapp
messages exchanged between him and other persons,
including the representatives of manufacturers, which
would show his propensity to destroy material piece of
evidence in the past. Not only this, there are statements of
officials witnesses recorded during investigation, showing
that they were intimated by the alleged officials, either to
do their official work in the manner and as per the
dictation/command of the applicant/accused, failing which,
they were bye-passed in the hierarchy of the official
functions. Not only this, said witnesses have also stated in
their respective statements that they were being called by
the applicant/accused to his residence, where the
applicant/accused used to intimidate them to do illegal
work in connivance with alleged officials of CPA and
DGHS. It is also revealed during investigation that the
alleged officials used to refer the applicant/accused as
‘
Bhai’ and used to intimidate other officials working under
them, to perform their official work, by referring as “
Bhai
ne kaha hai” or “
Bhai ka phone aaya hai” by referring to
the applicant/accused. In this backdrop, the Court finds
substance in the submissions made on behalf of State that
-- 38 of 39 --
Bail Matter No.227/2026 Page 39 of 39
there is every possibility that the applicant/accused may
either tamper with the evidence; or may influence the
prosecution witnesses aquatinted with the facts and
circumstances of the case, so to dissuade them from
disclosing the correct and complete facts to the
Investigating Agency, in the event of grant of anticipatory
bail to him.
35. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, including the nature of allegations, gravity of the
offences alleged, the role allegedly played by the
applicant/accused, custodial interrogation of the
applicant/accused is required in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case; and in view of the
foregoing reasons and the discussion made hereinbefore,
Court is of the considered view that the applicant/accused
is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Consequently, the bail application is hereby dismissed and
stands disposed off.
36. However, it is hereby made clear that nothing mentioned
hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion
on merits of the case and the observations made
hereinabove are solely for the purpose of deciding the
present bail application.
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)‑01
Rouse Avenue Court Complex
New Delhi/25‑
08‑
2026(r)
-- 39 of 39 --