Delhi court rejects bail pleas of former DGHS Chief, CPA head in medical procurement scam
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Saturday dismissed the bail applications of the former Director General of Health Services (DGHS) and former head of the office of the Central Procurement Agency (CPA), in an alleged corruption case involving the procurement of medical equipment, medicines and hospital supplies for Delhi government hospitals.
Special Judge Vidya Prakash, while hearing separate bail pleas of the accused persons, said in a common order that the gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the two accused and the ongoing investigation weighed against granting them bail at this stage.
The judge said the investigation was still underway against co-accused and other unknown entities, firms or companies. “Consequently, the bail applications are hereby dismissed and stand disposed of,” Judge Prakash said, PTI reported.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has alleged that he operated several firms in others’ names and, with the help of public servants, rigged tenders so that his companies won supply orders.
It claimed that the tender specifications were tailor-made, rival bidders were disqualified without reason, and purchase orders were issued manually even though the bids were floated on the GeM portal.
One of the main transactions cited is the purchase of 448 portable X-ray machines, the court noted.
According to the prosecution, the court said, the manufacturer quoted Rs 14.92 lakh plus GST per machine, while the supplier firm, F-Med Devices, allegedly sold them to the government at Rs 37.8 lakh each.
The court also noted the alleged wrongful loss to the exchequer at Rs 842 crore and said a financial investigation had traced government payments of Rs 839 crore to five principal beneficiary firms.
The accused was arrested on June 18, followed by the former DGHS Chief on June 27.
The court rejected the argument that the absence of recovery of bribe money from the accused meant no offence was made out, saying their alleged role lay in the procurement and fund-release process.
The court also relied on statements of two key witnesses and on a disclosure statement by a co-accused.
The court said the presence of committees and multiple approval levels did not by itself absolve the accused, as they allegedly used and influenced the system.
It further noted that he had issued an office order on November 11, 2025, directing that tender-related files be kept in his custody, and that these files could not later be traced. The court said they were possibly destroyed.
It also cited his alleged conduct when Directorate of Vigilance officials visited the CPA office, saying he left abruptly and his phone was unreachable. It further noted allegations that an official who objected to the files was taken to his residence on the accused's directions and intimidated.
On the question of delay in trial, the court said the large number of witnesses and voluminous documents could not by themselves justify bail in a large-scale economic offence.
It said that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not entitle an accused to bail, since further investigation, including into the financial trail and his role, was continuing.
The court accepted that the former DGHS Chief is 61 and suffers from several ailments, but said a jail medical report dated September 29 showed her vitals were stable, that she was being treated and kept in the Medical Inspection Room, and that she was not suffering from any life-threatening condition.
Her medical needs could be addressed through jail and government hospital facilities, it said.
She had earlier been granted four weeks’ interim bail on medical grounds on August 18, but her plea for extension was rejected on September 14.
Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court said economic offences form a class apart and must be viewed differently from other crimes.
It also said the apprehension that the accused, given their former senior positions, may influence witnesses or tamper with records was not theoretical.
The court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the bail pleas and did not amount to an opinion on the merits of the case.
