The Rouse Avenue Court has denied bail to former DCA Neeraj Chopra in the Rs 840 crore DGHS procurement scam, citing the gravity of the allegations and ongoing investigations into the case involving cartelization and financial violations.
Bail Denied in Rs 840 Crore Procurement Scam
New Delhi [India], November 3 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court has denied bail to Neeraj Chopra in the alleged DGHS Medical procurement scam case of Rs 840 crores. He sought regular bail on the ground that a chargesheet against him and two others has been filed. Neeraj Chopra was Deputy Controller Accounts (DCA) in Central Procurement Agency (CPA) in 2022. The court refused to grant him bail, noting the allegations levelled against him, the gravity, his alleged role and the ongoing investigation regarding the accused Rajiv Rangeela.
Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) has filed a charge sheet against Former Director General Health Services (DGHS) Vatsala Aggarwal, Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga and Neeraj Chopra. Special Judge (ACB) Vidya Prakash dismissed the bail application after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations, gravity of the offences alleged, severity of punishment prescribed in the event of grant of conviction to the applicant/accused, modus operandi allegedly used in the commission of offences alleged against him and the role allegedly played by him, and the fact that further investigation qua co-accused Rajiv Kumar alias Rajiv Rangeel and other unknown entities/ firms/companies is still going on.
Court Observations and Legal Arguments
“The Court is of the considered view that the accused is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail application is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of,” the Special Judge ordered on October 31. While rejecting the contention, the court said, “Mere filing of the charge-sheet does not, by itself, entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, while keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the offences, the specific role attributed to him, the material collected during investigation, the circumstances of the case and the possibility of interference with the administration of justice.”
During the arguements on bail, the counsel for the accused submitted that he had no role to play in the procurement of medicines, medical equipment and hospital supplies by the Central Procurement Agency (CPA), and the allegations regarding inflated procurement rates, which form the very foundation of the FIR in question, have no concern with the accused, since the same were fixed by co-accused persons namely Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga and Dr Vatsala Aggarwal. Hence, the case of the accused is altogether different from that of the said two co-accused persons, namely Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga and Dr Vatsala Aggarwal, whose bail applications were dismissed by this Court on October 17, 2026, the counsel submitted.
Prosecution Claims Against the Accused
While opposing the bail application, Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) Kumar Sanjay argued that there is ample evidence collected during investigation, as filed with the charge-sheet, showing that the present applicant/accused had connived with co-accused persons and unknown entities, firms, companies, and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, he not only acted against the interest of the government department, but also against the interest of the members of the society, by promoting cartelization in bids process, and in this regard, he violated CVC guidelines/ Finance rules/ inbuilt terms and conditions, by abruptly abandoning e-procurement through GeM portal. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)