Gujarat High Court
Sanjaybhai Muljibhai Patoliya vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 7112 of 2025
==========================================================
SANJAYBHAI MULJIBHAI PATOLIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR.ADVOCATE with MR ARJUN M JOSHI(11247) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. RAJESHKUMAR S MISHRA(9946) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK DAVE, PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 08/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191020240478 of 2024 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, District:Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 340(1), 318, 61 of the B.N.S.
2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Arjun M. Joshi and learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakiya appearing for the applicant, learned advocate Mr.Rajeshkumar S. Mishra for appearing for the victims and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Dave for the Respondent - State.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined 2.1 Rule. Learned PP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
3. Learned senior advocate for the applicant submitted that the entire case of prosecution qua the present applicant is based upon a conspiracy theory. However, having regard to the material available on record, the said theory falls flat on its face since as per the record, it is indicated that the amount of Rs.16.64 crore had been paid to the Khyati Hospital under the PMJAY scheme for the past three years and it is not even the case of prosecution that the said amount of Rs.16.64 crore was obtained wrongfully by Khyati Hospital. Therefore, the case of prosecution as regards a conspiracy having been hatched for commission of the present offence gets nullified by its own material.
3.1 He further submitted that the applicant herein is a Non- executive Director at the Khyati Hospital. The present applicant is in no manner connected with the Cardiology department of the Khyati Hospital. The present applicant herein is a qualified Bariatric Surgeon and has never performed any surgery related to heart at Khyati Hospital. As a Bariatrics Surgeon, the present applicant performs surgeries with regard to obesity, weight loss etc. The present applicant has been performing these surgeries since last 25 years. The present applicant has never been involved in either organizing or participating in any of the medical camps organized at the behest of the Khyati Hospital, nor has he ever instructed any of his staff employees to organize any such camps. The present applicant has admittedly not interacted with any of the patients who were brought from Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined Borisana village after the medical camp was organized on 10.11.2024. The present applicant being a Non-executive Director, is not responsible for day-to-day affairs of the Hospital, nor he is responsible for administration of the Hospital. The applicant has also not drawn any remuneration from the Hospital in the capacity of a Non-executive Director. Whatever amounts were paid to him by the Khyati Hospital were his professional charges for having performed the bariatrics surgeries at Khyati Hospital. In fact, the present applicant has injected his own funds in the hospital at regular intervals and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the present applicant of milking money from the hospital by resorting to alleged illegal means. The entire case of prosecution so far as the present applicant is concerned, is based on lot of conjectures and surmises. There is no material worth the name in the charge-sheet papers indicating the complicity of the present applicant in the present offence. By no stretch of imagination, the applicant can be said to have committed any offence, much less an offence punishable under Section 105 of the BNS. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
3.3 Learned senior advocate for the applicant has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions.
(i) Shantibhai J. Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat [2012 (0) AIJEL-SC 52275]
(ii) Shantilal Ishwarbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.11877 of 2024].Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined
4. The application is opposed by learned PP for the respondent contending that the present is not the case of a simple medical negligence. The decision of this court in the present application as well as the other allied matters is going to have an impact in the medical field for a long time. In the present case the human lives have been tampered with just to get monetary benefits. The manner in which the present offence is committed has shaken the confidence of the public at large on the medical fraternity. The present offence is a result of large- scale conspiracy of which the present applicant is also a part. Generally, there would be no direct evidence as regards the aspect of any conspiracy since they are hatched in the darkest corners of the room. The conspiracy can only be sensed through the circumstances surrounding the incident. Though the present applicant has personally not performed any surgeries in question, being a Director of the Hospital, he has actively participated in commission of the offence in question.
4.1 The present applicant had attended the Board Meetings of the Khyati Hospital in his capacity as a director of the hospital wherein the decision regarding marketing policy of the hospital was taken and it was decided that the hospital should organize more and more medical camps in the village and it was in execution of the said policy that the camp was organized at Borisana village of Kadi Taluka on 10.11.2024. The said camp was attended by more than 80 persons. Out of them 19 patients were advised further treatment and they were taken to Khyati Hospital on 11.11.2024, where they were subjected to undergo the examinations like cardiogram and coronary angiography. Out of 19 patients, 7 patients were advised to further procedure Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined of angioplasty giving them the impression that their vital arteries of heart were blocked and if the procedure of angioplasty was not performed immediately, there is a possibility of sudden cardiac arrest, which may result into their death. Thus, the procedure for angioplasty was performed on seven patients, out of them, two patients have died because of the complications related to angioplasty performed upon them.
4.2 The material available on record indicates that the reports which were prepared showing 80-90% of blockages in the arteries were manipulated. This exercise was carried out only with an intention to make more money out of PMJAY scheme. The present applicant being the Director of the hospital is equally responsible for commission of the offence in question.
4.3 He submitted that the investigating agency had hired the services of CA for getting the forensic audit of the accounts of the Hospital. The report of the said CA indicates that the applicant is also in the business of medical equipment and had also sold medical equipment to the Khyati Hospital and as per the report of the auditors, irregularities were found in those transactions between the present applicant and the Khyati Hospital. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the victims has also opposed the present application contending that specific role is attributed to the present applicant. The material available on record clearly indicates that the greed of the accused persons of making more money out of PMJAY scheme had resulted into Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined unfortunate deaths of two persons. The present applicant is also a Doctor and therefore he very well knew that if any procedure related to heart was performed upon the patient, without there being any need for the same, the same can prove fatal for the said patient and being the Director of the Hospital, it was duty of the present applicant to prevent such procedures being performed. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
6. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. It is the case of prosecution that the Khyati Hospital situated at Ahmedabad with an intention of making more money out of the PMJAY scheme of Government of India, had organized a medical camp at Borisana village of Kadi Taluka, Dist:Mehsana. As many as 89 patients had attended the said medical camp where they were examined. Out of those 89 patients, 19 patients were advised further examination and treatment and therefore, they were asked to come to Khyati Hospital, Ahmedabad and accordingly those 19 patients visited Khyati Hospital at Ahmedabad on 11.11.2024. The further examination of those 19 patients were carried out and they were asked to undergo procedure for cardiogram and coronary angiography. Out of these 19 patients, 7 patients were subjected to procedure of angioplasty.
6.1 It is the case of prosecution that the procedure of angioplasty was wrongfully conducted on these 7 patients, though it was not required, just with an intention of making more money from the PMJAY scheme. Out of those 7 patients, Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined two patients unfortunately died because of the complications which developed after the performance of angioplasty upon them. As per the case of prosecution, the reports of those 7 patients were manipulated with an intention to get the approval from the competent authority under the PMJAY scheme for performance of angioplasty upon them.
6.2 So far as the present applicant is concerned, he is a Non- executive Director of Khyati Hospital and it is alleged against him that he had attended the Board Meeting wherein the marketing police was chalked out for bringing more and more patients to Khyati Hospital. The material available on record does not indicate any other role played by the present applicant in commission of the offence in question. The material on record does not indicate that the applicant had played any role in organizing a medical camp at Borisana Village or for that matter for organization of any medical camp at any place, nor there is anything on record to indicate that the applicant herein had examined any of the patients who had attended the camp on 10.11.2024, nor he had examined any of the 19 patients who were brought to the hospital on 11.11.2024. The record of investigation is also silent as regards the applicant having tempered or seen the medical reports of the patients who were subjected to the procedure of angioplasty. The present applicant appears to have been implicated in the present offence simply because he is a Non-executive Director of the Khyati Hospital. So far as the irregularity found in the accounts of the hospital as regards sell of the medical equipments by the applicant to the Khyati Hospital is concerned, the same has nothing to do with the present offence. Considering the same, the application Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined deserves consideration.
7. This court has considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in judicial custody.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(f) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m..
(g) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
(h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week.
If the Applicant does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
9. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.
10. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7112/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
11. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) Manshi Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 06:52:00 IST 2025