Jumbo COVID-19 centres scam: Bombay High Court grants bail to Sanjay Raut’s alleged aide Sujit Patkar

Mr. Jindal
5 Min Read

Medical staff at Jumbo Covid Care Centre. File

Medical staff at Jumbo Covid Care Centre. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to businessman Sujit Patkar, an alleged aide of Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, in the multi-crore COVID-19 jumbo centre scam case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The scam involves alleged irregularities in awarding and executing contracts for managing jumbo COVID-19 treatment facilities during the pandemic in Mumbai. 

In an order passed on July 16, a Single Bench judge, Justice Amit Borkar allowed Mr. Patkar’s release on bail, noting the delay in the commencement of trial, the period of custody already undergone, and parity with a co-accused who was not arrested in the case. 

“In view of the aforesaid circumstances and taking into consideration a period of custody undergone by the applicant, ground of parity of co-accused and delay in commencement of trial, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail,” the Court said in its order. 

Mr. Patkar, a partner in Lifeline Hospital Management Services (LHMS), was arrested by the ED on July 19, 2023, and has since been in judicial custody. The agency has alleged that LHMS secured contracts to operate jumbo COVID centres at NSCI Worli and Dahisar from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) by submitting forged documents, including a fabricated partnership deed to qualify for the contract. 

According to the ED, after securing the contracts, Mr. Patkar and other accused submitted inflated attendance sheets, false invoices, and fictitious staff deployment records, thereby claiming and receiving funds to the tune of over ₹32,76,33,861.50 crore. It is alleged that this caused a wrongful loss to the BMC and a wrongful gain of ₹18.5 crore to LHMS and its partners. 

While granting bail, the High Court placed particular emphasis on the fact that Dr. Hemant Gupta, another partner in LHMS and an accused in the predicate offence registered by Mumbai Police had not been arrested by the investigating agency. The Court also noted that Dr. Gupta was authorised by all partners to operate the firm’s affairs. 

“The co-accused Hemant Gupta, who is shown to be holding a 30% partnership share 30% in M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services, has not been arrested during the investigation and has been granted bail upon appearance under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This differential treatment of two similarly placed accused, despite allegations of equal participation, forms a crucial plank of the applicant’s plea for bail. It is well settled that parity is a constitutionally recognised principle under Article 14, and any departure from the same must be justified by cogent and distinguishable material,” the Court said. 

The ED has submitted a voluminous charge sheet comprising approximately 5,000 pages, with 63 witnesses listed. Noting that framing of charges had not yet commenced and the likelihood that the trial would be prolonged, the Court held that Mr. Patkar’s continued incarceration would be unjustified. 

“There is no certainty of when the trial will begin and conclude. The evidence in support of the prosecution’s case is mainly in the form of documentary evidence. The possibility of tampering with evidence, at the instance of the applicant, in light of the condition of regular reporting to the Investigating Officer and not contacting the witnesses, is remote,” the Court said.  

Mr. Patkar has been directed to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and comply with the conditions of: not leave Maharashtra without prior permission of the Special PMLA Court; appear before the investigating officer on the first Monday of every month until framing of charge; refrain from tampering with evidence or attempting to contact prosecution witnesses; and provide permanent residential address to the Special Court and notify changes. 

The Court also clarified that any breach of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail. 

Share This Article
Leave a Comment