Vishal Anand vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

2026:CGHC:373 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 9796 of 2025

Vishal Anand S/o Shri Anand Kumar Jha Aged About 51 Years Presently Chief Engineer/ Rsw, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.06 15:18:49 R/o V-17, Near Bharat Mata School, Officers Railway Colony, Bilaspur, +0530

Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant

versus

Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police, Central Bureau Of Investigation, Ac-Ii, New Delhi, Camp At Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, For Respondent/CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate (through VC)

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

05.01.2026

1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under

Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been 2

arrested in connection with Crime No. RC2172025A0010

registered at Police Station : CBI/AC-II/New Delhi (C.G) for the

offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9,10 & 12 of the PC Act,

1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS 2023.

2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on

merits by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed

in MCRC No. 6635 of 2025.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as projected by the applicant is

that based on allegedly reliable information received by the

respondent - CBI, it was revealed that certain officials of the

South-East Central Railway (for short, the SECR) were allegedly

involved in corrupt and illegal activities in collusion with M/s

Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., a company engaged in the business of

construction. The prosecution further alleges that between

01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025, SECR awarded 44 work contracts to

M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. Further case of the prosecution is that

the applicant, Vishal Anand, in his capacity as Chief

Engineer/RSW, SECR was actively involved as the Convenor of

the Tender Committee concerning Tender No. Engg-CTE-BSP-

08-2024-25. Upon completion of the tender process through e-

tendering and reverse auction, a work order was issued in favour

of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. for the execution of safety fencing

with gates and a pedestrian subway from KM 618.000 to KM

722.000 of the BSP-JSG section within the Bilaspur Division. The 3

awarded work could not be executed due to the absence of the

requisite cable clearance from the S&T Department. In order to

obtain or expedite such clearance, co-accused Sushil Jhajharia,

the Managing Director of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., approached

the applicant to seek his influence and intervention with the S&T

Department to facilitate the Clearance process. It is further

alleged that on 21.04.2025, a meeting reportedly took place

between the applicant and co-accused Sushil majharia in the

applicant's office cabin, followed by another meeting later at

evening. During these meetings, a mutual understanding was

arrived whereby a bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- was to be paid

to the icant in lieu of facilitating the pending clearance from the

S&T Department. Pursuant to this alleged agreement, co-

accused Manoj Pathak, an employee of M/s. Jhajharia Nirman

Ltd. was allegedly instructed to deliver the said amount to the

applicant's father, Anand Kumar Jha, and his brother, Kunal

Anand, at Ranchi on 25.04.2025. The respondent agency laid a

trap and recovered the said amount from the applicant's said

relatives.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant has not committed

any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and

has been falsely implicated in the present case despite being

wholly innocent. The applicant is a distinguished officer of the

Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE, 2000 batch) who

joined the Indian Railways on 03.09.2001 and has rendered 4

nearly 25 years of continuous, unblemished, meritorious and

incident-free service, having held several important and

responsible positions including Assistant Engineer, Executive

Engineer/Track Machine, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction),

Senior Divisional Engineer, and Chief Project Manager on

deputation with RVNL, and is presently posted as Chief

Engineer/RSW, SECR. The allegations levelled against him are

false, misconceived and unsupported by any credible or legally

admissible material. The investigation against the applicant

stands concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed

on 23.06.2025; notably, the charge-sheet itself clarifies that

further investigation is contemplated only against other persons

and not against the present applicant, thereby conclusively

establishing that no further investigation is pending insofar as he

is concerned, eliminating any possibility of tampering with

evidence. The very foundation of the prosecution case is flawed,

as the applicant had no authority, jurisdiction or functional control

over the Signal & Telecommunication (S&T) Department, which

is an independent department headed by its own Principal Head

of Department reporting directly to the General Manager, and

S&T clearances are issued exclusively by the competent S&T

authorities at the divisional level. The charge-sheet as well as the

statements of prosecution witnesses unequivocally establish that

the applicant, being part of the Civil Engineering Department,

could neither influence nor grant S&T clearances, and in fact no 5

such clearance was ever granted. The applicant's role in the

tender process was purely limited, procedural and non-

discretionary, as he merely acted as Convenor of a three-

member Tender Committee, with the final decision resting solely

with the designated Accepting Authority, namely the Principal

Chief Engineer. The tender was awarded through a transparent,

automated e-tendering process followed by a reverse auction on

the IREPS platform, leaving no scope for manipulation, favoritism

or undue influence, and the prosecution has failed to point out

any deviation from prescribed procedures. Crucially, there is a

complete absence of evidence to establish the essential

ingredients of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

as there is no proof of demand or acceptance of any illegal

gratification by the applicant, no trap proceedings were

conducted against him, no recovery of tainted money was made

from his person or premises, no chemical test was conducted,

and he was arrested separately in a different State, far away

from the alleged place of recovery.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the

alleged recovery from private individuals, without any evidence of

nexus, instruction or conscious acceptance by the applicant,

fatally undermines the prosecution case. The prosecution case is

further vitiated by serious legal infirmities, including violation of

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for want of prior

approval before initiating inquiry, pendency of mandatory 6

sanction under Section 19 of the Act which legally bars

cognizance and trial, and reliance on allegedly illegal telephonic

interceptions conducted in violation of the Telecommunications

Act, 2023 and settled constitutional safeguards. There are also

material inconsistencies in the prosecution story, including an

unexplained discrepancy in the alleged bribe amount, which

strikes at the root of the case. The shifting and contradictory

prosecution theory, initially alleging bribe for award of contract

and later changing it to S&T clearance despite the applicant

having no role therein, clearly reflects mala fide intent and abuse

of process. The applicant has already undergone prolonged pre-

trial incarceration since 25.04.2025 for offences carrying a

maximum punishment of seven years, while the trial cannot

commence due to absence of sanction, making continued

detention punitive, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the

Constitution. The applicant satisfies the well-established triple

test for grant of bail, as he poses no flight risk, cannot tamper

with evidence, and cannot influence witnesses, all of whom are

official witnesses.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the similarly

placed co-accused Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal

has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

SLP No. 13167 of 2025 vide order dated 28.10.2025, thereby

entitling the present applicant to the benefit of bail on the ground

of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is suffering from 7

serious medical ailments while in judicial custody, which has

further aggravated the hardship caused by his continued

incarceration. In view of the settled principle of law that bail is the

rule and jail is the exception, coupled with the presumption of

innocence, prolonged pre-trial detention, absence of any

incriminating evidence, completion of investigation, parity with

co-accused, and serious legal infirmities in the prosecution case,

the applicant most respectfully submits that he deserves to be

enlarged on regular bail.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, Mr. Gopa Kumar,

opposes the bail application, submitting that the instant case was

registered by CBI, AC-II Branch, New Delhi on 25.04.2025 on

source information for serious offences under the BNS, 2023 and

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving a large-scale

corruption conspiracy between the present applicant, a senior

Railway Official, and representatives of M/s Jhajharia Nirman

Ltd. It is alleged that the applicant abused his official position to

obtain illegal gratification for clearing bills and awarding lucrative

railway contracts. Pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy, a bribe

amount of approximately Rs. 32 lakhs was delivered through co-

accused Manoj Pathak and was recovered during a successful

CBI trap from the possession of the applicant's brother, Kunal

Anand, at Ranchi, in the presence of independent witnesses. The

charge-sheet has already been filed, and recoveries of

substantial cash and valuables have been made from the 8

applicant and co-accused, indicating proceeds of corruption. It is

further submitted that recorded telephonic conversations, witness

statements, and documentary evidence prima facie establish the

applicant's active role in the conspiracy. Considering the

seriousness and gravity of the offence, the influential position of

the applicant, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or

influencing witnesses, and the fact that further investigation into

the larger conspiracy is still underway, the respondent strongly

contends that the applicant does not deserve the discretionary

relief of bail and prays for rejection of the bail application.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case diary.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature

and gravity of the offence alleged against the present applicant,

and the fact that the similarly placed co-accused, namely Sushil

Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, has already been granted

bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13167 of 2025

vide order dated 28.10.2025, this Court finds that the present

applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is further noted that

the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent

Court and, therefore, the investigation stands concluded. The

applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2025, and the

conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time. In view of

the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the 9

present case.

10. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant - Vishal Anand, involved in

Crime No. RC2172025A0010 registered at Police Station :

CBI/AC-II/New Delhi (C.G) for the offence punishable under

Sections 7, 8, 9,10 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of

the BNS 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond

with two local 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 on

the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses

are present in court. In case of default of this

condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat

it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in

accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the

trial court on each date fixed, either personally or

through his counsel. In case of his absence,

without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed

against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail

during trial and in order to secure his presence,

proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued

and the applicant fails to appear before the court on 10

the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial

court shall initiate proceedings against him, in

accordance with law, under Section 209 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,

before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i)

opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)

recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the

applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause,

then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such

default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed

against him in accordance with law.

11. 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

vaibhav