Chhattisgarh courts grant bail in Rs 660 crore CGMSC procurement case

What the Record Shows

Two of the accused in the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation (CGMSC) procurement case were granted bail by the Chhattisgarh High Court in May 2026, even as the underlying prosecution - built by the state Economic Offences Wing and the Enforcement Directorate - remains pending trial. On 11 May 2026 the High Court granted bail to Shashank Chopda of M/s Mokshit Corporation in the ED's money-laundering case, and on 14 May 2026 it granted bail to Rakesh Jain of M/s Shri Sharda Industries in the predicate corruption case, per the orders of Justice R Sinha.

The predicate case, Crime No. 05/2025, was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing at Raipur on 22 January 2025 under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2) and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The ED registered its own case, ECIR/RPZO/07/2025, on 18 February 2025. The EOW's public statements have put the loss to the state exchequer at between Rs 550 crore and Rs 660 crore at different stages of the investigation.

None of these are findings of guilt. A chargesheet and an ECIR contain allegations, not a verdict; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the trial is pending. The matter is filed in our enforcement archive.

How It Worked

The scheme the agencies allege centres on Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23, floated under the state's "Hamar Lab" programme for integrated diagnostic laboratories offering free tests. According to the ED, Chopda, through Mokshit Corporation, "influenced officials" of the health department and CGMSC and obtained an inflated rate contract for medical equipment and reagents, with tender specifications alleged to have been tailored to favour his firm and purchase orders issued without adequate budgetary provision.

A second limb, alleged in the predicate case, is cover bidding. Per the High Court's order in Rakesh Jain's bail application, the EOW alleges that Jain's firm, Shri Sharda Industries, "deliberately quoted rates equal to or higher than" those quoted by Mokshit, so that Mokshit would win, allegedly causing substantial loss to the exchequer. The corporation, the ED states, issued purchase orders totalling Rs 467.22 crore to Mokshit under Tender No. 182.

The overpricing, as the investigators' case describes it and as widely reported, ran to striking multiples: an illustrative item attributed to the EOW is EDTA blood-collection tubes billed at about Rs 2,352 apiece against roughly Rs 8.50 paid by other institutions, with consumables allegedly pushed to health centres that lacked matching analyser capacity or storage. The procurement period at issue runs from January 2022 to October 2023.

The enforcement steps followed in sequence, per the record. The EOW arrested Chopda in the predicate FIR on 28 January 2025 and made further arrests through March 2025, including corporation and health-department officers; the ED conducted searches in July and August 2025 and arrested Chopda in its own case on 14 January 2026. Each of these is an allegation or an investigative step, not a proven fact.

Who Lost Money

The party the record identifies as the loser is the state health system. The alleged overpayment came out of the Chhattisgarh health budget, and district hospitals and health centres were, the EOW alleges, left holding reagents and equipment they could not use for want of matching machines or storage - a double loss of money spent and capacity not gained.

The figures attached to that loss vary by source and stage, and this report states them as what each agency alleged rather than as established fact. The EOW has cited a headline loss of Rs 550 crore to Rs 660 crore; the purchase orders to Mokshit under the single tender came to Rs 467.22 crore, per the ED; and the ED has quantified the alleged proceeds of crime more narrowly at Rs 135.02 crore, being the excess it alleges Mokshit was paid over fair market value. Counsel for Chopda disputed that calculation, arguing it ignored Rs 258.19 crore in unpaid dues and made no allowance for taxes and costs.

No money has been returned or redistributed. Any recovery would follow confirmation of the ED's case and the outcome of the trial.

Where It Stands Now

The case is post-investigation but pre-verdict. The prosecution complaint has been filed and the trial is pending before the Special Court exercising PMLA jurisdiction. Across April and May 2026 the higher courts granted bail to several accused: the Supreme Court in the predicate offence (Criminal Appeal No. 1978/2026, 17 April 2026), and the Chhattisgarh High Court to Chopda in the ED case on 11 May 2026 and to Rakesh Jain on 14 May 2026, among others. The courts cited the conclusion of the investigation, the filing of the complaint and parity with co-accused already on bail.

Bail is not an acquittal. It reflects the courts' view on custody pending trial, not on the merits of the allegations, and the conditions imposed - sureties, attendance at every hearing and cooperation with the trial - keep the accused within the court's process.

A chargesheet, an ECIR and the arrests in this matter all rest on allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. This report reflects the position as of the May 2026 orders reviewed for it.

What It Means

For a reader, the value here is in seeing how public procurement is supposed to be policed and where it can fail. Rate contracts and tenders are the state's defence against overpricing; the allegation in this case is that the defence was turned inside out, with specifications and cover bids allegedly used to steer a contract and inflate prices. The remedy the system provides is exactly what is now playing out - an EOW investigation, a parallel ED money-laundering case targeting the alleged proceeds, and a trial to test all of it.

It is also a reminder of how differently a loss can be counted. A headline Rs 660 crore loss figure, a Rs 467.22 crore order value and a Rs 135.02 crore proceeds-of-crime estimate are three different measures of the same matter, and only the last is the sum the ED must actually stand up at trial. Readers following enforcement news - such as our reports on the Manav Bharti University ED case and the DHFL provident-fund bail order - will recognise the same gap between a headline figure and a chargeable one.

FAQ

Does a chargesheet mean the accused are guilty?

No. A chargesheet, an ECIR and the arrests in this case contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The trial before the Special Court has not concluded.

What do the EOW and ED allege?

The EOW alleges that Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 was manipulated so that Mokshit Corporation secured an inflated rate contract, with cover bids from a rival firm, causing large losses to the state exchequer. The ED alleges the resulting overpayments were proceeds of crime and has quantified them at Rs 135.02 crore, a figure the defence disputes.

How large was the loss?

It depends on who is counting. The EOW has cited Rs 550 crore to Rs 660 crore; purchase orders to Mokshit under the tender came to Rs 467.22 crore, per the ED; and the ED's alleged proceeds of crime are Rs 135.02 crore. This report states each as alleged.

Have the accused been released?

Several have been granted bail - by the Supreme Court in the predicate offence in April 2026 and by the Chhattisgarh High Court in May 2026, including Shashank Chopda and Rakesh Jain. Bail is not an acquittal; the trial continues under conditions set by the courts.

What was the "Hamar Lab" tender for?

Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 was issued by CGMSC under the Hamar Lab programme to set up integrated health laboratories providing free diagnostic services. The allegation is that the procurement under it was rigged and overpriced, not that the programme itself was improper.

Where can I read the official record?

The Chhattisgarh High Court's bail orders of 11 and 14 May 2026 are published on Indian Kanoon; the links appear at the end of this report.

This report is based on the Chhattisgarh High Court order dated 11 May 2026 in Shashank Chopda vs Directorate of Enforcement and the order dated 14 May 2026 in Rakesh Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh, reviewed on 2 August 2026.