Chhattisgarh High Court: In a bail application filed by an accused in the Hamar-Lab scam worth Rs 411 Crores, the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the application, holding that the evidence prima facie disclosed that the investigation established the accused as the mastermind of the scam and the acts committed by him were not only grave economic offences but also crimes against the welfare of society at large.
Background
The police received secret information that in 2021, under the Scheme “Hamar-Lab” at the District and Community Health Centre Level, the Public Health and Family Welfare Department directed the purchase of necessary equipment, machines, etc. (‘the supplies’), through Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd (‘CGMSCL’). Accordingly, the CGMSCL purchased the supplies in 2023.
Allegedly, the Director of Health Services, CGMSCL, and their officers placed the order for the supplies without evaluating the budget and demand or any administrative approval.
The officers concerned unnecessarily purchased the supplies at a significantly higher price to generate a profit for the companies whom they were colluding with. Thus, they improperly and dishonestly performed public duties and committed criminal misconduct by entering a criminal conspiracy with certain companies, namely, Mokshit Corporation, CB Corporation, Records and Medicare System, Shri Sharda Industries, and others. This resulted in a total loss of approximately Rs. 411 Crores to the State Government.
Accordingly, an FIR was filed against the officers of CGMSCL, Directorate of Health Services, Mokshit Corporation, CB Corporation, Recorders and Medicare System, Shri Sharda Industries, and six others under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Thereafter, the accused was arrested for allegedly being the mastermind behind the scam. Hence, this application.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that an economic offence was more serious than conventional crimes as they affect the entire economy and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country while shaking public confidence in the financial system. Such crimes committed during economic, or business activities caused financial harm and adversely impacted the country’s economic well-being and financial health.
The Court noted that the State still had to investigate the case concerning the involvement of the government officials without whose connivance the accused could not have secured the tender in question, and that too, at an excessive rate.
The Court stated that in the present case, since there was connivance between private companies and State officials, it could not be ruled out that the accused would not attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. The Court remarked that economic offences constituted a different class and needed to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
The Court held that the documents appended to the petition, prima facie disclosed that the investigation established the accused as the mastermind of the elaborate and well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy, wherein he created multiple fictitious companies in the names of his relatives and close associates, and under the guise of packaging, repair, maintenance, consultancy, and logistics services, he generated fraudulent invoices exceeding Rs. 150 Crores.
Further, the Court held that because the supplies made by the accused with respect to the equipment/machines were closed systems, it seemed that the CGMSCL would have to purchase the reagents from the accused’s company, i.e., Mokshit Corporation, as the reagents of another company could not be used. This gave the accused a monopoly to supply the reagents at a price of his choice in the future. Due to such acts, the people were deprived of various pathological tests that could have been conducted in the Primary Health Centre, Community Health Centres, District Hospitals, etc.
Lastly, the Court held that the acts committed by the accused were not only grave economic offences but also crimes against the welfare of society at large. Thus, granting him bail would not only embolden corrupt practices but also send a highly detrimental message to society, undermining public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Accordingly, the application was rejected.
[Shashank Chopda v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 6457, decided on 13-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Mridul, Senior Advocate Ajay Mishra, Pragalbh Sharma, Ruchi Nagar and Prashant Bajpai
For the respondent: Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
