2014 (5) TMI 1205 - HC - Indian Laws

Chief Medical Officer in N.R.H.M. Scam Case Denied Bail: Central Role in Fraudulent Activities

Dr. Prem Prakash Verma Versus C.B.I.,S.T.F., Ghaziabad

The court denied bail to the Chief Medical Officer in the N.R.H.M. Scam case due to their significant role in fraudulent activities leading to a ... Bail application - higher rates of the tablets that were purchased relating to Iron Folic Acid that has caused a loss of ₹ 11 lakhs - HELD THAT:- Having considered the submissions raised the bail order of Dr. Satish Kumar and H.G. Singh itself carves out an exception in their favour by recording that the said applicants had a limited role as they are the members of the tender purchase committee who were directly under the control of the applicant Dr. P.P. Verma. The bail orders aforesaid therefore proceed to draw a distinction between the applicant's role and the other members of the purchase committee - The applicant being the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut was owning a higher responsibility and the allegations made and the evidence collected as reflected in the charge-sheet therefore distinguish the case of the applicant and the other members of the said purchase committee. This is not a case of parity with the other co-accused - application rejected. Issues: Bail application in N.R.H.M. Scam case involving alleged misappropriation of funds through forged bills and higher pricing of medical supplies.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a bail application in the N.R.H.M. Scam case where the applicant, a Chief Medical Officer, is accused of involvement in fraudulent activities resulting in a loss of public funds. The applicant filed the bail application, citing precedents where other co-accused were granted bail. The counsel for the applicant argued that if other members of the purchase committee were released on bail, the applicant should also be granted bail based on the principle of parity. The defense highlighted that there was no criminal history for the applicant and no risk of absconding during the trial, thus justifying the bail request.However, the counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposed the bail application, alleging that the applicant, as the Chief Medical Officer, played a significant role in violating government circulars and orders related to purchases, resulting in a substantial loss to the public exchequer. The prosecution emphasized that the charge-sheet implicated the applicant in overseeing the opening of tenders and approving payments at inflated rates for medical supplies, leading to misappropriation of funds. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting the applicant's central role in the conspiracy and highlighted the discrepancy in pricing of medical tablets, indicating the applicant's direct involvement in the fraudulent activities.The judge, after considering the arguments from both sides, rejected the bail application. The judge differentiated the applicant's role from other members of the purchase committee, emphasizing the higher responsibility of the applicant as the Chief Medical Officer. The judge noted that the evidence presented in the charge-sheet distinguished the applicant's involvement in the scam, leading to the conclusion that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The judge likened the nature of the crime to economic offenses, citing a relevant case, and deemed the applicant ineligible for bail at that stage due to the serious allegations and evidence presented in the case.In conclusion, the judgment denied the bail application for the applicant in the N.R.H.M. Scam case, highlighting the significant role played by the applicant in the fraudulent activities, resulting in a substantial loss to the public exchequer. The decision was based on the specific allegations and evidence against the applicant, which distinguished their involvement from that of other co-accused, leading to the rejection of the bail plea.