Court: Economic Offence Not Just Financial Fraud, But Betrayal of Public Trust and Welfare
Bilaspur:
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the bail plea of businessman Shashank Chopda, accused of masterminding a massive ₹411 crore scam involving the supply of grossly overpriced medical equipment and reagents under the state-run “Hamar Lab” scheme. The Court observed that granting bail at this stage would embolden corruption and harm public confidence in the justice system.
The scam, exposed during an investigation into the procurement activities of the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd (CGMSCL), allegedly involved Chopda’s company Mokshit Corporation, which supplied items like EDTA blood collection tubes for ₹2,352 each, though their market price is just ₹8.50. Other discrepancies include ₹5 lakh CBC machines sold for ₹17 lakh and ₹300 crore worth of reagents purchased just to prevent expiry — all without proper budgetary or administrative approvals.
Court: “Economic Offences Need a Different Approach”
Rejecting the bail plea, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha emphasized the serious nature of economic offences, calling them more damaging than conventional crimes due to their impact on public resources and trust. The Court said such crimes “shake the financial integrity of the State” and observed that public health centres were deprived of diagnostic services, causing direct loss to the people.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Gujarat vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal, the Bench stressed that economic crimes should be met with a stricter bail policy.
“Well-Orchestrated Criminal Conspiracy”
The Court stated that the investigation revealed an organized criminal conspiracy. Chopda allegedly created fictitious companies in the names of relatives, fabricated invoices exceeding ₹150 crore, and manipulated tender conditions using bogus documents to monopolize supply.
Counsel for the state, Dr. Pande, warned that Chopda’s release could obstruct ongoing investigations, particularly into the role of complicit government officials, and pose risks of evidence tampering and witness influence.
Accused Denies Wrongdoing
Chopda’s lawyers, Siddharth Mridul and Ajay Mishra, claimed that the inflated tube price was a typographical error — ₹23.52, not ₹2,352 — and insisted the company merely fulfilled a government tender. They alleged that the state owed ₹351 crore to Mokshit Corporation and accused authorities of scapegoating Chopda to avoid payment.
However, the Court found these arguments insufficient, observing that a scam of this scale couldn’t have occurred without connivance between private suppliers and state officials.
Final Observation
“Granting bail would send a highly detrimental message to society,” the Court said, while denying bail under Sections 409 and 120B IPC, and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2), and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court concluded:
“It is not an ordinary financial crime, but a crime in an organised manner… one that betrays the public and deprives them of basic healthcare services.”
