Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

1. Heard Sri N.K Sharma learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Khanna for the C.B.I.

2. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has filed a counter affidavit to which a response has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

3. This is the first bail application of the applicant before this Court who is behind bars since 23.10.2013. The applicant is involved in the N.R.H.M. Scam case as per the F.I.R. dated 23.2.2012. A charge-sheet was filed on 14.2.2013 in which the applicant has been named in the statement of one Abdul Mateen partner of M/s Unicure Pharmaceutical Limited who alleged that the said firm had not filled up any tender and secondly it was alleged that the bills were raised issued by M/s Sudarshan Pharmaceutical Limited, Indore to M/s Daffodills Pharmaceutical Limited, Meerut which indicated forged bills of the same batch number at higher rates of the tablets that were purchased relating to Iron Folic Acid that has caused a loss of Rs. 11 lakhs. This high pricing was alleged in which 7 to 8 doctors were allegedly involved with the contracting firm.

4. Sri Sharma has invited the attention of the Court straight away to the bail order of this Court in the case of Dr. Satish Kumar and Dr. H.G. Singh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20587 of 2013 and 20586 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 to urge that the said doctors were also the members of the purchase committee against whom similar allegations were made and they have been bailed out by this Court.

5. Learned counsel submits that the role of the applicant is not different and therefore if this Court has granted bail to the two other members of the purchase committee then in that event the applicant is entitled for bail. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the order passed on 23.9.2013 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16574 of 2014 in the case of Dr. Surya Pratap Ojha v. C.B.I. to substantiate his submissions.

6. The contention of Sri Sharma is that if it was a collective responsibility then in that event the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail as the allegations are made on the said facts and evidence as against the other co-accused who have been granted bail as indicated hereinabove.

7. Sri Anurag Khanna has opposed the bail application vehemently and has urged that all Government Circulars and Orders meant for such purchase have been blatantly violated at the instance of the applicant who was the Chief Medical Officer and was heading the said purchase committee resulting in the acceptance of such bills. The payments were issued under the hand of the applicant that resulted in a huge loss of public exchequer. He has invited the attention of the Court to the charge-sheet indicating the leading role of the applicant as he was the person responsible for opening of the tenders and the payments that were consequently made. It is urged that the charge-sheet clearly records that Iron Folic Acid tablets at the rate of 5 paise was billed by the M/s Sudarshan Pharmaceutical Limited, Indore to M/s Daffodills Pharmaceutical Limited, Meerut and the forged bills of same batch number were raised at the rate of 26 paise per tablet. The payments for the same were received by M/s Sudarshan Pharmaceutical Limited, Indore from the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, thus establishing the conspiracy and the direct involvement of the applicant who was the then Chief Medical Officer.

8. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the various documents of the counter affidavit to contend that the comparative rates of such a tablet were far less and in such circumstances the evidence collected clearly indicates that this conspiracy indicating that the applicant was the King Pin in relation to the said purchase of tablets at a much higher price resulted in a huge loss of public exchequer that was misappropriated by the accused including the applicant.

9. Sri Sharma tried to explain that even if the loss indicated is taken on its face value the same does not in any way raise a liability exclusively on the applicant as against the other co-accused, and in such circumstances to single out the applicant merely because he was the Chief Medical Officer would be denying parity on irrational grounds. He submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant and there is no likelihood of his absconding during the trial as such the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

10. Having considered the submissions raised the bail order of Dr. Satish Kumar and H.G. Singh itself carves out an exception in their favour by recording that the said applicants had a limited role as they are the members of the tender purchase committee who were directly under the control of the applicant Dr. P.P. Verma. The bail orders aforesaid therefore proceed to draw a distinction between the applicant's role and the other members of the purchase committee.

11. In my opinion also the applicant being the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut was owning a higher responsibility and the allegations made and the evidence collected as reflected in the charge-sheet therefore distinguish the case of the applicant and the other members of the said purchase committee.

12. Consequently, I do not find this to be a case of parity with the other co-accused and in view of the allegations made and the evidence reflected in the charge-sheet, the applicant in this wide spread scam of National Rural Health Mission Scheme is not entitled for bail. The nature of the crime being one that is comparable to the economic offences as discussed in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, [LQ/SC/2013/568] therefore, do not allow the applicant at this stage to be enlarged on bail.

13. The application is accordingly rejected.