Fake medicine racket: Delhi court grants bail to businessman N Raja

A CBI Court in Delhi granted bail to businessman N Raja, who was arrested in a case of alleged conspiracy to manipulate a CBI investigation into a fake medicine racket in Puducherry. The court granted bail on a bond of Rs 50,000.

Businessman N Raja granted bail

A CBI Court at Rouse Avenue, Delhi, on Thursday granted bail to businessman N Raja. He has been arrested by the CBI for alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ongoing CBI investigation in a case linked with an alleged fake medicine racket in Puducherry.

Special Judge Sushant Changotra granted bail to N Raja after considering the nature of the allegations, the stage of the case, the absence of any further requirement for custodial interrogation, the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, the likely delay in conclusion of the trial and the settled principles of law, saying, " I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail." "Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed, and accused/applicant N. Raja alias Valliappan, alias Rajasekhar is ordered to be released on bail upon his furnishing of bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount." While granting bail, the court has also imposed conditions upon him.

The Alleged Conspiracy

It is that all accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with the aim to manipulate and influence the investigation of a criminal case being investigated by the CBI. It has been alleged that accused N Raja and Rajkumar had met accused Inspector Pradeep Kumar Singh, who allegedly assured them of securing favourable relief with the intervention of a senior public servant, namely Deepak Gehlawat, who was then posted as Regional Director, Directorate of Civil Aviation, Delhi.

It is further alleged that on 14.05.2026, accused N Raja, Rajkumar, Pradeep Singh and Prabhat Kapoor met accused Deepak Gehlawat in his office. A demand of Rs 3 crores was made, and an advance of Rs. 1 crore was sent through hawala channels. It is alleged that the entire advance bribe of Rs 1 crore was recovered in the course of investigation.

Arguments for the Defense

While arguing the bail application, the counsel for the accused argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It was further argued that the case of the investigating agency against the applicant is based on the allegation that he had attempted to influence the investigation being conducted by CBI, whereas there was no occasion for the applicant or anyone else to have made such an attempt because the FIR registered in Puducherry on 12.11.2025 under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had been stayed by the order of the High Court of Madras on 19.12.2025. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to the CBI by the Government of Puducherry on December 26, 2025.

It was also argued that, as per the prosecution version, all accused, including the applicant, had met with accused Deepak Gahlawat on 14.05.2026, but no material could be collected to show that any demand or offer to pay a bribe was made in the said meeting. He further argued that the investigating agency has been changing its case regarding recovery of the alleged bribe amount from time to time to suit its version vis-a-vis different accused at different times. It was argued that at one point the CBI alleged that demand of the initial amount of Rs 1.5 crore was made, but later on the said amount got changed to Rs 1 crore. Earlier it was alleged that accused Raj Kumar was transporting the recovered bribe amount of Rs.24.70 lakhs to accused Pradeep Singh. Later on, it was alleged that the recovery of the said amount was effected from the joint custody of Raj Kumar and Pradeep Singh, whereas the person alleged to have brought that amount could not be found or traced. He further argued that the remaining amount of Rs 50 lakhs was also allegedly recovered from Bharat Tandon and Rajesh Khosla, who were not arrested. The recovery was planted, but in any case the recovery of the entire alleged bribe amount has already been effected.

CBI's Opposition to Bail

The CBI opposed the bail application. The agency said that section 8 of the PC Act requires intention on the part of the accused to influence a public person for extending benefit to him, and therefore the fact that the investigation of the case had been stayed by the Madras High Court has no bearing on the present case. The CBI counsel further argued that the statements of witnesses and the material collected in the investigation clearly show involvement of the accused / applicant. The CCTV footage of the office of the Directorate of Civil Aviation shows the presence of the applicant along with Pradeep Singh and Rajkumar in the said office on 14.05.2026. The entry register of the office also bears their entry. It was also argued that the accused can influence the witnesses and, considering the gravity of the allegations, the bail application may be dismissed. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)