New Delhi: Opposing the bail plea of Rajiv Rangila, the alleged mastermind of the Rs 842-crore health procurement scam, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) told a Delhi court that it was still probing the role of alleged dummy directors of shell companies linked to him and examining key electronic evidence.
The prosecution alleged that Rangila controlled several connected firms despite not being their named director and remained untraceable despite proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS. He was arrested on Sept 24 after returning from the United States.
Observing that economic offences stand on a different footing, the court said such crimes affect society at large. Special Judge Vidya Prakash Wednesday took note of allegations that govt tenders were manipulated, public funds were routed through interconnected firms and crucial evidence was deliberately destroyed. Opposing the bail, senior public prosecutor Kumar Sanjay submitted that Rangila had been named in an FIR registered at Karnal Sadar police station in connection with the alleged abetment of the suicide of Gyan Chand, a former employee. The prosecution alleged that Rangila fraudulently used Chand’s credentials to make him a director in a shell company that participated in linen-supply tenders. ACB informed the court that it was also examining the role of Sunil Kumar and Laxman Singh in M Sahib & Sons Pvt Ltd, including the company’s procurement activities and financial transactions with F-Med Devices and other entities.
“The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the state are not brought to book,” the judge observed, adding that the allegations could not be brushed aside merely because no money had been directly recovered from the accused.
Countering the defence’s claim that the investigation was complete, the prosecution said forensic examination of seized hard disks, desktop computers and Rangila’s mobile phone was still pending. The judge also cited allegations that the accused and his associates had “embezzled the govt properties and destroyed the evidence willfully and intentionally”. Investigators also needed to correlate the electronic evidence with banking records, procurement documents and witness statements. The court noted allegations that one of Rangila’s firms secured a tender despite failing to meet eligibility criteria.