Delhi court denies bail to bizman in Rs 800-crore medical equipment procurement 'scam'

New Delhi, Nov 4 (PTI) A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed the regular bail plea of businessman Rajiv Kumar, alias Rajiv Rangeela, in the alleged medical procurement scam involving public funds worth over Rs 800 crore.

    The court said the probe against Kumar, who is accused of rigging tenders for the purchase of medical equipment, was still on and that he could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if he is granted bail.

    Special Judge (PC Act) Vidya Prakash, who was hearing the plea of the accused in the case registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), said, "The Court is of the considered view that the applicant/accused is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage."

    Kumar was arrested on September 24 after returning from the United States and has been in judicial custody since September 29.

    He has been booked for conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    According to the prosecution, Kumar ran or controlled fake firms that won tenders of the Central Procurement Agency (CPA) and the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) in connivance with other officials.

    The ACB alleged that tender specifications were tailor-made, rival bidders were disqualified without reason and orders were issued manually while tenders showed as 'active' on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal.

    The court noted that 448 portable X-ray machines were bought for Rs 37.8 lakh each, while the manufacturer had quoted Rs 14.92 lakh plus GST per machine to Kumar's firm -- F-Med Devices.

    The court noted that the firm "did not fulfil either of the aforesaid prescribed eligibility conditions" and was registered on GeM only in October 2025. It said that Kumar would have been fully aware of this.

    The prosecution alleged Rs 842 crore in wrongful loss to the exchequer, which the court said "almost paralysed" the health care institutes of the Delhi government.

    Kumar's counsel said he was "falsely implicated" and that F-Med Devices won the contracts as the lowest bidder in an open process.

    The advocate claimed the bid was a rate contract that did not bar ordering 448 X-ray machines, and that other government bodies had bought the same machines at the same or higher prices.

    Rejecting the arguments, the court said the material pointed to irregularities in "restrictive/tailor-made specifications, qualification of selected firms despite deficiencies, disqualification of other bidders" and award of orders to a few entities.

    It noted that bills of other suppliers had been pending for over two years while those of the beneficiary firms were cleared within a day or two.

    "Again, it would be anybody's guess as to what were those compelling reasons to do so," the court said.

    Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court said, "It is trite that economic offences constitute (a) class apart, and thus, need to be viewed differently."

    The court took note of witness statements that officials were pressured to follow Kumar's instructions.

    It said they referred to him as "bhai" and invoked him with phrases such as "bhai ne kaha hai" or "bhai ka phone aaya hai".

    "The apprehension of interference is, therefore, not theoretical," the court said.

    It said the defence argument that the investigation was over was "quite misplaced".

    The court underlined that the probe was continuing into the financial trail, connected entities and electronic evidence, and that the accused's "continued custody is found necessary in order to ensure fair and unhindered investigation".

    The bail pleas of co-accused Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga and Dr Vatsala Aggarwal were rejected on October 17. The bail plea of another co-accused, Neeraj Chopra, was rejected on October 31.

    Kumar's anticipatory bail plea was dismissed on August 25.

    The court clarified that "nothing mentioned hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case".

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)