The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga and Dr Vatsala Aggarwal in the alleged Rs 842-crore Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) medical procurement case, ruling that their continued custody was not necessary as the investigation had substantially progressed.
Justice Sachin Datta observed that the prosecution’s case rested largely on documentary and electronic evidence that had already been seized. The court said refusal of bail must be based on a “demonstrable necessity” to keep an accused in custody, rather than the gravity of the allegations alone.
The court noted that both applicants are doctors with permanent residences in Delhi and no criminal antecedents. It said there was nothing on record to suggest that either was a flight risk. The court also considered Dr Aggarwal’s compliance with the conditions of her interim bail and her surrender on the appointed date.
The case concerns alleged irregularities in medical procurement by the DGHS. On the claimed financial loss, the High Court noted that the Rs 842 crore represented payments made to five firms, while the charge-sheet described the amount as wrongful loss. In relation to the procurement of X-ray machines, the court said the difference in quoted prices could not be treated as a conclusively established financial loss without reconciling applicable taxes, specifications and the underlying procurement records.
The availability of tender files was a central issue in the state’s opposition to bail. Dr Ranga was accused of issuing an office order and was linked to statements made by officials. Dr Aggarwal was alleged to have connived in the destruction of files received by her for approval. The court, however, noted that the files had not been produced despite repeated requests even before either applicant was arrested.
“If, as the state alleges, the files have been destroyed, there is nothing left to recover,” the court said. It added that pre-trial detention cannot be used to compel an accused to produce documents that he or she is alleged to have made away with. The court also recorded the state’s position that the mere non-availability of records was not conclusive proof that the documents had disappeared or been destroyed.
Whether the three public servants allegedly connived in destroying evidence remains a matter for trial, the judge said. Charges have not yet been framed. The court noted that the case involves 84 witnesses, voluminous records and further investigation, including the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet, indicating that the trial would take considerable time.
The order keeps the focus on how allegations of financial loss in public procurement are established, particularly where records, taxes, technical specifications and tender documentation must be reconciled. The proceedings will now continue with the investigation and subsequent trial process, including consideration of the supplementary charge-sheet.
