Dr. Ketan Desai vs The State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2967 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      Bail Application No. 839/2010 and Crl. M.A. No.718/2010

%                                           Reserved on: 3rd June, 2010

                                            Decided on: 4th June, 2010

Dr. Ketan Desai
S/o Sh. Dhirajlal Desai
"Ashirvas", 7, Friends Avenue,
Sindhu Bhavan Road, Badakdev,
Ahmedabad (Gujrat).                                                ..... Petitioner
                         Through:        Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
                                         Mr. Pramod Dubey, Mr. J.S. Bhasin,
                                         Mr. Vivek Jain and Ms. Misha Narayan,
                                         Advocates
                     versus
The State
(Throgh C.B.I.)                                                  ..... Respondent
                              Through:   Ms. Sonia Mathur and Mr. Sushil Kumar
                                         Dubey, Advocates with I.O. Satender
                                         Goswami.
Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                           Yes.

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                        Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                            Yes.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. This is a petition for grant of regular bail in case RC No. 02(A)/10/ACU-

IX/CBI dated 22nd April, 2010 under Section 7, 8, 11, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter „the PC Act‟). As per

the prosecution this case was registered on the allegations that Dr. Ketan Desai,

President, Medical Council of India (MCI) entered into a criminal conspiracy

with Shri J.P. Singh with an intention to obtain bribe for grant of permission to

Gyan Sagar Medical College, Patiala. The concerned management of this

medical college became a party to this conspiracy by agreeing to pay the bribe

in order to get certain shortcomings in the infrastructure overlooked by the

MCI. The CBI received a source information on the basis of which enquiry was

conducted, during which the relevant mobile phones were intercepted.

2. It is contended that after registration of the case a team was deployed at

the residence of Shri J.P. Singh at D-6/13, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to intercept

Dr. Kamaljeet Singh who was coming to deliver the bribe amount of Rs. 2

Crore. At about 12.50 hrs. on 22nd April, 2010, Dr. Kamaljeet Singh while

coming out of the house of Shri J.P. Singh was challenged and interrogated and

on his disclosure, Rs. 2 Crore was recovered from the office located at the

ground floor of the residential premises of Shri J.P. Singh at D-6/13, Vasant

Vihar, New Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the CBI states that the present is a case of larger

conspiracy wherein the Petitioner, former President, Medical Council of India

(MCI) was not only passing on prior information to Shri J.P. Singh pertaining to

the schedule of inspection by MCI but also ensured that favourable report would

be given by the Inspection Team of MCI. According to learned counsel, despite

the fact that the Gyan Sagar Medical College was lacking in certain requisite

infrastructure which could not have been completed within such a short

duration, the Petitioner and Shri J.P. Singh helped the Institute to get favourable

report from MCI in lieu of a consideration of an amount of Rs. 2 crores to be

delivered through Shri J.P. Singh to the Petitioner. In this regard statement of a

witness recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C has been relied upon.

4. Learned counsel for the CBI has also produced the transcript of the

conversations between the parties. The transcript of the conversations show

continuous interaction between Dr. Ketan Desai, Sukhwinder Singh, Jitender

Pal Singh, Kamaljeet Singh, K.A. Paul and Nirmaljeet Singh Bhango and the

conversations are co-relatable to the dates on which the events took place. The

conversation amongst the accused persons reflect the motive, demand of bribe

and the modus operandi for the favours shown to the Gyan Sagar Medical

College and Hospital, Patiala. It is submitted that two accused persons, that is,

Nirmaljeet Singh Bhango and K.A. Paul are still absconding.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the CBI that the Petitioner was

holding a very sensitive position and the compromise thereon was affecting the

medical education in the country which had far-reaching consequences not only

on the educational standard of the doctors but also the patients. It is submitted

that the investigations are prima facie leading to the fact that the Petitioner and

Shri J.P. Singh are involved in such an incident relating to one more medical

college. It is stated that since the Petitioner was holding a sensitive position and

was a highly influential person, initially people were not coming forward to

complain against him. Even in the present case the complainant was not ready

to divulge his identity and thus, the enquiry started on source information. It is

for this reason, it was put on the official website of the CBI, that in case

anybody has any complaint against the petitioner/MCI, the same may be

informed to the CBI. It is thereafter that the complaints are pouring in and till

now approximately 225 complaints have been received. It is stated that another

case of disproportionate assets has also been registered against Dr. Ketan Desai.

According to her, the Petitioner is an influential person and there is every

likelihood of his tampering of evidence in case he is released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the permission to Gyan

Sagar Medical College was granted after completing all the necessary

formalities. According to learned counsel a Committee was set up by the

Central Govt to look into the issue of grant of approval to the Gyan Sagar

Medical College which also found no irregularity in it. Learned counsel states

that as per the search list, the investigating agency itself was not aware whose

money it was. Moreover, the amount of Rs.2 crore in the search list at item

No.50 has been added subsequently after the witnesses had signed the same.

7. Learned counsel places reliance on Professor K. Narayan Rao vs. CBI,

2009 (4) JCC 2551; Anurag Vardhan vs. CBI, 105 (2003) DLT 594. It is

contended that the petitioner has already spent nearly 44 days and in any case

investigation has to be completed with a period of 60 days and thus, the

investigation having nearly reached completion, there is no likelihood of the

petitioner‟s interfering with the investigation. It is contended that the statement

of Lakhvinder Singh is not reliable, as the search list shows that only one person

came out from the car and thus either it could be that person or the driver

Lakhvinder Singh.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is

no longer the President of MCI and has also been suspended as a Professor and

thus there is no likelihood of his committing such an offence in future. There is

no recovery effected from the Petitioner which fact has been admitted by the

CBI in its reply filed before this Court. It is contended that there is no material

to show that the Petitioner had shown favour to the Gyan Sagar Medical

College and Hospital for grant of approval. It is stated that the transcript if any

are in the possession of CBI which the Petitioner cannot tamper with and thus

no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody.

9. The Petitioner‟s mother is ailing and in this regard he has filed an

application for interim bail as well. The Petitioner is the only son and thus, is

required to look after his mother. It is stated that the Petitioner is also suffering

from "obstructive sleep apneya" and thus requires constant medical attention.

10. Learned counsel for the CBI with regard to the aliment of the mother,

states that the mother was operated on 11th November, 2009 and there is no

apparent problem at the moment. Moreover, the treatment which she had

undergone from Dr. Gandhi for her Psycotic ailment was 3-4 years back. It is

stated that the wife of the Petitioner is a doctor and running a full-fledged

nursing home. Thus, requisite medical facilities are available to the mother of

the Petitioner. Qua the Petitioner, it is stated that learned Trial Court has

directed that the required breathing aid, that is, nasal CPAP be provided to the

Petitioner which requires no regulation and the Petitioner for his ailment of

Hypertension is on regular medication.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the

statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 and the transcript of the

conversations between the parties. The transcript corroborates the sequence of

events as to how first deficiencies were pointed out and then a favourable report

was given, after getting the inspection done by a particular team, who acted on

the behest of the present Petitioner. From the material on record, prima facie, a

case of conspiracy under Sections 7, 8, 11, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC

Act is made out.

12. In the preset petition, the issue for consideration before this Court is

whether it is a fit case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been

in custody for 44 days. The Petitioner is the main accused in the present case.

The present case is not registered on the complaint of an individual but the CBI

acted on a source information and thereafter intercepted the conversations of the

accused persons leading to a trap being conducted, wherein Rs. 2 Crore, which

was to be given to the Petitioner for extending favour, were recovered and thus,

on registration of a FIR the Petitioner and the other accused persons were

arrested on 22nd April, 2010. The Petitioner was the President of Medical

Council of India, a statutory body, responsible for the medical education of the

country. The grant of permission for continuing with the medical courses and

introducing new courses was in the hands of this statutory authority.

Injudicious discretionary exercise affects the quality of education obtained by

persons who got medical degrees, thereby affecting the health of patients of the

country. It may be noted that in this case also the complainant has not come

forward and the Petitioner would have gone scot free but for the reliance on the

source information and interception conducted by the CBI. This clearly

demonstrates the influence built up by the Petitioner. I find force in the

contention of learned counsel for the CBI that because of the influence of the

Petitioner nobody came forward to make complaints against the Petitioner

regarding demand of money or for giving approval/permission to colleges

without requisite infrastructure. It is for this reason that the CBI had to put on

the website, requesting the people to come forward to give complaints against

the Petitioner/MCI officials if they had any. The fact that the Petitioner was in

custody and on the CBI‟s assurance number of complaints have been received,

which now have reached upto 225 approximately, demonstrates the fact that

people are not willing to come forward and complain against the Petitioner due

to his influence. On a specific query being put to learned counsel for the CBI as

to whether the said complaints would be investigated in this very FIR or

separate FIR would be registered, learned counsel for the CBI states that on

these complaints, in case cognizable offences are made out, separate FIRs

would be registered. It is also pointed out that one more case under the PC Act

for having disproportionate assets has already been registered against the

Petitioner and his family members.

13. Be that as it may in view of the fact that the Petitioner is the main accused

and now being in custody, people are coming forward to give complaints which

would have to be inquired and thereafter investigated if need arises, I am not

inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.

14. I am also not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner on the ground that the

Petitioner is suffering from hyper-tension and sleep apneya, in view of the fact

that the Petitioner has already been provided with CPAP machine and for

hypertension he is on regular medicines. Regarding the mother‟s ailment, it

may be noted that she was hospitalized from 8 th February, 2010 to 17th

February, 2010 only for evaluation of her neurological problem. As per the

medical report it is observed that from 2003 onwards she is a case of

progressive dementia with cognitive and behavioural dysfunction and has been

advised continuous treatment and care. No ground is made out for release on

bail in view of the fact that the Petitioner is the only son who has to look after

his mother, as the wife of the Petitioner is a doctor and running a nursing home.

Thus, there are sufficient number of doctors to take care of the old ailments of

the Petitioner‟s mother, which need no emergent attention.

15. The petition and Crl. M.A. No. 718/2010 are stand dismissed.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JUNE 04, 2010 'raj'