Dismissed

Sandip Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Calcutta HC23 Feb 2026CRM(M)/1228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by a supplier accused in a CBI corruption case concerning rigged tender/quotation processes at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. Considering the trial stage, vulnerable witnesses and sensitivity of misappropriation of funds meant for public health services, the court rejected bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; pending applications disposed of.

Sandip Ghosh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Corruption | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

23.02.2026 Court No.35. D/L.259 (PA) (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (R) 11 of 2025

¶3

With

¶4

CRAN 1 of 2025

¶5

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with CBI Case No. RC0102024A0007 dated 24.08.2024 under Sections 120B/420/409/467 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶6

And

¶7

In the matter of : Biplab Singha.

¶8

……Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv, Mr. Indrajit Adhikari Ms. Ritu Das Mr. Arpit Choudhury Mr. Suman Majumder ……for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, Ld. DSGI Mr. Amajit De, Special PP, CBI Ms. Arushi Rathore

¶11

……for the CBI.

¶12

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case with regard to a conspiracy alleged with Sandip Ghosh, the Principal of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital relating to violation of rules in respect of supply of items/services through quotation/tender, receiving undue benefit in respect of his firms namely, M/s. Maa Tara Traders, M/s. Baba Lokenath Udyog, etc.

¶13

¶14

It was contended that the petitioner was called on five occasions at the office of the CBI, he cooperated with the investigation and on September 02, 2024 after a prolong interrogation he was shown to be arrested at about 10.30 P.M. It is alleged that the petitioner was not provided with the grounds of arrest or even the memorandum of arrest.

¶15

Learned Senior Advocate presented a detailed picture of the petitioner’s business background and submitted that the petitioner was involved in such business of supply of hospital associated materials since 2014 much prior to Sandip Ghosh joined as Principal on February 15, 2021 at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital.

¶16

In order to substantiate his contention, it was emphasized that the petitioner supplied goods to Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine; SSKM Hospital, Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata; Bangur Institute of Neurosciences; Calcutta National Medical College & Chittaranjan Hospital, Kolkata; Hooghly Hospital; Baruipur Hospital; Jhargram Govt. Medical College & Hospital; District Health & Family Welfare Samiti; Diamond Harbour; Burdwan Medical College; Bankura Sanmilani Medical College & Hospital; Head Quarter of District Magistrate, Alipore; MSD Medical College & Hospital; Berhampore, Deben Mahata Govt Medical College & Hospital, Purulia; SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and other hospitals in Odisha. In each of the Hospitals, the petitioner participated in the tender process, became a successful bidder and then only he was allowed to

¶17

¶18

supply the goods. The accusation of the petitioner having entered into a conspiracy with the Principal of the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital namely, Sandip Ghosh is out of question as in all the aforesaid Medical Colleges and Hospitals, a single person cannot be in the helm of affairs.

¶19

Arguments were also advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the accusation against him in respect of setting up UG Skill Laboratory along with installation and supply of all equipment therein without any work order wherein, a sum of Rs. 2.97 Crore was involved is baseless and the documents relating to the same would be available in Item No. 120 of not relied upon documents.

¶20

Additionally, it has been contended that vague, generalized accusations have been made which are baseless and without any supportive material far less, any legally admissible material and bald allegations have been stated in the charge-sheet that without any quotation, the petitioner because of his relationship with the Principal of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital was allowed to carry on his business and the petitioner utilizing such position by usage of forged and fabricated documents manipulated the quotation process, supplied the goods by charging inflated prices, supplied inferior quality of goods and caused wrongful loss to the Government exchequer.

¶21

Petitioner is in custody for about 17 months and there has been hardly any progress of the case. If the prosecution documents are relied upon, it would reflect that the prosecution intends to examine 147 witnesses and more than 600 documents.

¶22

¶23

There being no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future, petitioner prays for bail as the documents which have been collected are in possession of the prosecution and there is no possibility of tampering the evidence or fleeing away from the process of law.

¶24

Learned DSGI opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the petitioner was thickly involved in the alleged offence of corruption as well as loss caused to the Government exchequer by manipulation of the tender process. Petitioner is influential as he has been successful for a considerable period of time to carry out his mission of supply of inferior quality of goods at an overpriced tag. Petitioner is influential as inspite of information furnished and a case being registered being Tala Park Police Station Case No. 62/2024, there was no progress in the said case and it was only after CBI taking up charge of the investigation, evidence surfaced regarding the complicity of the present petitioner, his association with the Principal of the College and the corruption involved.

¶25

Learned DSGI has also referred to the specific allegation against the petitioner which is in the form of a charge and reads as follows:

¶26

“Biplab Singha being private person entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sandip Ghosh and in furtherance of the said conspiracy and in violation of laid down norms and rules regarding supply of items/services through quotation/tender caused undue benefit to different firms which were part of cartel under their

¶27

¶28

control. In order to execute the objective of said conspiracy, they prepared and used forged documents and cheated the Government by using these documents as genuine. Suman Hazra also supplied items at exorbitant price, by way of rigging the whole quotation process. The accused Biplab Singha and Suman Hazra operated a cartel and by way of forging documents did not allow competitive bidding for items to be procured at RGKMCH-during the period 2021 to 2024 and thereby cheated the Government to the tune of Rs 6.7 Crores approximately.

¶29

The aforesaid acts of the accused constitute offences punishable under sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 of IPC read with sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(a) of PC Act, 1988 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018) and substantive offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.”

¶30

I have taken into account the fact that the trial of the case has commenced, number of vulnerable witnesses are to be examined, few of the vulnerable witnesses have already been examined but because of other accused person being brought in within the ambit of law there is a delay. The nature of the offence complained of in this case relates to Government money being disbursed by the Health Department for the purposes of rendering services to the poor people at large. There are materials which have been collected by the investigation which are subject to be tested at dock.

¶31

Petitioner had been carrying on business within the campus of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. There are number of

¶32

¶33

witnesses who are associated with the Hospital itself. There are other witnesses who are associated with the similar nature of business and there are witnesses who are poor vendors and are susceptible to succumb to any sort of influential pressure.

¶34

Having considered the stage of the case, the sensitivity involved, the accusations relating to corruption including charges of misappropriation of Government funds assigned for the poor people, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner.

¶35

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (R) 11 of 2025 is rejected .

¶36

Pending applications if any are consequently disposed of.

¶37

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶38

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶39

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Sandip Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Swapan Sardar @ Laltu and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Sushil Kumar Poddar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Sraboni Nath @ Srabona Nath Vs State of West Bengal

Adi Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.