New Delhi: Delhi High Court has granted bail to Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga and Dr Vatsala Aggarwal, arrested in the alleged Rs 842-crore Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) medical procurement scam, holding that their continued custody was not necessary as the investigation had substantially progressed and the prosecution’s case rested largely on documentary and electronic evidence that had already been seized.
On the alleged financial loss, the court noted that the Rs 842 crore represented payments made to five firms, though the charge-sheet described the amount as wrongful loss.
Justice Sachin Datta observed that refusal of bail must be based on a “demonstrable necessity” to keep an accused in custody and not merely the gravity of the allegations. The necessity of continued detention, he said, was the yardstick for deciding the applications. Referring to the status report on X-ray machine procurement, it observed that the difference in quoted prices “cannot be treated as a conclusively established financial loss without reconciling the applicable taxes, specifications and underlying procurement records”. If, as the state alleges, the files have been destroyed, there is nothing left to recover,” the court said.
“Since both the applicants are doctors, with permanent residences in Delhi and no criminal antecedents, there is nothing on record to suggest that either applicant is a flight risk. Dr Aggarwal, in particular, abided by the conditions of her interim bail and surrendered on the appointed date,” the court observed. The missing tender files, which the state cited as its most serious ground for opposing bail, also came under scrutiny. Dr Ranga was accused of issuing an office order and linked to statements of officials, while Dr Aggarwal was alleged to have connived in the destruction of files received by her for approval. However, the court noted that the files were not produced despite repeated requests even before either applicant was arrested. “The non-availability of the files thus preceded any period of custody. Pre-trial detention, it observed, cannot be employed as a means of compelling an accused to produce the documents which he is alleged to have made away with. The court also pointed out that the state had acknowledged that the mere non-availability of records was not conclusive proof of their disappearance or destruction.
Whether the three public servants had actually connived in destroying evidence is a matter for trial, the judge said, adding that charges are yet to be framed and with 84 witnesses, voluminous records and further investigation, including a supplementary chargesheet, the trial would take considerable time.