Regular bail has been granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur to Shashank Chopda in a money laundering case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, with the Court holding that his custody could not be continued indefinitely by taking aid of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha passed the order on May 11, 2026 in MCRC No. 2956 of 2026, titled Shashank Chopda v. Directorate of Enforcement Through Assistant Director (ED), Raipur Zonal Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The applicant was represented by advocates Mayank Kumar, Kumar Vaibhav and Puranjay Bhatt, while the Directorate of Enforcement was represented by advocates Rajvansh Singh and B. Gopa Kumar.
Bail Plea Filed Under Section 483 BNSS
The applicant had filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/07/2025 dated February 18, 2025, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
The ED case arose from a predicate FIR registered on January 22, 2025 as Crime No. 05/2025 at ACB/EOW, Raipur, for offences under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The FIR concerned alleged criminal conspiracy in relation to Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSC/2022-23, floated on August 26, 2022 by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSCL) and awarded to M/s Mokshit Corporation.
Also Read:Revenue Records Do Not Confer Land Title: Supreme Court
Applicant Alleged Belated Arrest By ED
The applicant submitted that he had been arrested in the predicate FIR on January 28, 2025 and had remained in custody since then. It was argued that the ECIR was recorded on February 18, 2025, but the ED arrested him only on January 14, 2026, nearly eleven months later.
His counsel contended that the ED and ACB/EOW had allegedly acted in a coordinated manner to prolong his custody by arresting him in the PMLA case after nearly one year of investigation, on the basis of material already available in the predicate case.
The applicant also pointed out that the ED had conducted searches on July 30/31, 2025 and August 28, 2025 under Section 17 of the PMLA, and had claimed recovery of incriminating materials, but had not arrested him at that stage.
It was further submitted that investigation against the applicant in the ECIR stood concluded on March 13, 2026, when the ED filed its prosecution complaint before the Special Judge under the PMLA.
ED Opposed Bail Citing Section 45 PMLA
The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the bail application and alleged that the applicant had influenced officials of the Department of Health Services and CGMSCL and had fraudulently obtained an inflated rate contract for supply of medical equipment and reagents in the name of M/s Mokshit Corporation.
The ED alleged that the tender process was rigged in favour of the applicant and that specifications were tailor-made to keep genuine bidders away. It was further alleged that excessive purchase orders were issued without ensuring budgetary provisions or required infrastructure at health centres.
According to the ED, purchase orders of ₹432.03 crore, ₹27.07 crore, ₹17.06 crore and ₹38.33 crore were issued in favour of Mokshit Corporation for reagents, medical equipment and CBC machines.
The agency further alleged that ₹135.02 crore had been received by Mokshit Corporation in excess of the fair market value of the supplied medical items and constituted proceeds of crime for the purposes of the PMLA investigation.
Court Notes Predicate Bail And Completion Of Investigation
The Court noted that the ECIR was admittedly an offshoot of the predicate offence registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur. It also recorded that the applicant had been arrested in the predicate offence on January 28, 2025 and had remained in continuous custody since then.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court, by order dated April 17, 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 1978/2026, had already granted bail to the applicant in the predicate offence.
It also found that the investigation in the ECIR, qua the applicant, had concluded and that the prosecution complaint had already been filed before the Special Court under the PMLA.
Also Read: Supreme Court Questions Delhi HC Ruling On Low Attendance In Law Colleges
Section 45 PMLA Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention: Court
The Court observed that although the ECIR was recorded on February 18, 2025, the ED arrested the applicant only on January 14, 2026, after almost eleven months of investigation.
It noted that searches had already been conducted in July and August 2025 and that the applicant was available in judicial custody throughout. The Court held that the ED had ample opportunity during this period to interrogate the applicant and collect material.
“At this stage, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required,” the Court observed.
Referring to Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another, the Court noted that Section 45 of the PMLA cannot be interpreted to justify indefinite detention and that constitutional courts must intervene in appropriate cases to safeguard personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held that since the applicant had been in jail since January 28, 2025 and the prosecution complaint had already been filed, he could not be kept in detention for an indefinite period by relying on Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court further recorded that the twin conditions stood satisfied.
Bail Granted Conditions
The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, cosidering the nature of allegations, volume of documents and number of witnesses involved.
It was further noted that the applicant was stated to be a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh with family roots, and that no criminal antecedents were attributed to him apart from the present case and the predicate offence. It was also recorded by the Court that nothing substantial had been placed on record by the ED to show that, if released on bail, the applicant was likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
Without commenting on the merits of the rival contentions, the bail application was allowed by the Court, and Shashank Chopda was directed to be released on bail in Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/07/2025, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
The Court imposed conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournment when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, and to remain personally present on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS.
It was further directed that, if the liberty of bail is misused by the applicant and a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued, and if he fails to appear, proceedings under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita shall be initiated by the trial court. The trial court was also permitted to proceed under Section 269 BNS in the event of absence without sufficient cause.
A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent by the office to the concerned trial court for necessary information.
