Medical workers at Jumbo Covid Care Centre. File | Photo Credit: PTI
In an order handed on July 16, a Single Bench choose, Justice Amit Borkar allowed Mr. Patkar’s launch on bail, noting the delay within the graduation of trial, the interval of custody already undergone, and parity with a co-accused who was not arrested within the case.
“In view of the aforesaid circumstances and bearing in mind a interval of custody undergone by the applicant, floor of parity of co-accused and delay in graduation of trial, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be launched on bail,” the Court stated in its order.
Mr. Patkar, a associate in Lifeline Hospital Management Services (LHMS), was arrested by the ED on July 19, 2023, and has since been in judicial custody. The company has alleged that LHMS secured contracts to function jumbo COVID centres at NSCI Worli and Dahisar from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) by submitting cast paperwork, together with a fabricated partnership deed to qualify for the contract.
According to the ED, after securing the contracts, Mr. Patkar and different accused submitted inflated attendance sheets, false invoices, and fictitious workers deployment data, thereby claiming and receiving funds to the tune of over ₹32,76,33,861.50 crore. It is alleged that this brought on a wrongful loss to the BMC and a wrongful achieve of ₹18.5 crore to LHMS and its companions.
While granting bail, the High Court positioned specific emphasis on the truth that Dr. Hemant Gupta, one other associate in LHMS and an accused within the predicate offence registered by Mumbai Police had not been arrested by the investigating company. The Court additionally famous that Dr. Gupta was authorised by all companions to function the agency’s affairs.
“The co-accused Hemant Gupta, who’s proven to be holding a 30% partnership share 30% in M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services, has not been arrested throughout the investigation and has been granted bail upon look below Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This differential remedy of two equally positioned accused, regardless of allegations of equal participation, kinds an important plank of the applicant’s plea for bail. It is effectively settled that parity is a constitutionally recognised precept below Article 14, and any departure from the identical should be justified by cogent and distinguishable materials,” the Court stated.
The ED has submitted a voluminous cost sheet comprising roughly 5,000 pages, with 63 witnesses listed. Noting that framing of prices had not but commenced and the chance that the trial could be extended, the Court held that Mr. Patkar’s continued incarceration could be unjustified.
“There is not any certainty of when the trial will start and conclude. The proof in help of the prosecution’s case is especially within the type of documentary proof. The chance of tampering with proof, on the occasion of the applicant, in mild of the situation of normal reporting to the Investigating Officer and never contacting the witnesses, is distant,” the Court stated.
Mr. Patkar has been directed to execute a private bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and adjust to the situations of: not go away Maharashtra with out prior permission of the Special PMLA Court; seem earlier than the investigating officer on the primary Monday of each month till framing of cost; chorus from tampering with proof or making an attempt to contact prosecution witnesses; and supply everlasting residential tackle to the Special Court and notify adjustments.
The Court additionally clarified that any breach of those situations would result in cancellation of bail.
Published – July 17, 2025 03:37 am IST
