Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: DLCT110009402026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT11-000940-2026
Bail Matter No.211/2026
Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga v. State.
FIR No: 7/2026
PS: ACB
U/s: 7A/13(1)/13(2) PC Act
r/w S. 61(2)/316(5)/318(4)/238 of BNS, 2023
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the bail petition seeking
regular bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused
Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga.
2. Arguments on the bail petition have already been heard on
14-08-2026. I have duly considered the rival submissions
made on behalf of both the sides, in the light of material
available on record. I have also gone through the
authorities cited at the Bar.
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga.
3. Ld. Counsel, inter alia, advanced the following
submissions/arguments:
3.1 The applicant/accused was serving as the Head of
Office [hereinafter referred to as ‘HOO’ in short],
in Central Procurement Agency [hereinafter referred
to as ‘CPA’ in short], Directorate General of Health
Services [hereinafter referred to as ‘DGHS’ in
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 1 of 30
-- 1 of 30 --
short], Govt. NCT of Delhi, and had discharged his
official duties strictly in accordance with the
applicable rules, regulations and government
procedures and he had nothing to do with the
offences alleged in this case;
3.2 The case of the prosecution arises out of alleged
irregularities in procurement of medicines, medical
equipments and surgical consumables by CPA,
DGHS, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the allegations
primarily relate to official procurement decisions,
which are founded upon government records,
procurement files, GeM portal records, electronic
data and financial documents. The procurement of
equipments by the CPA is carried out through a
well-defined institutional procedure involving
multiple levels of scrutiny and approvals. As per
such procedure, concerned Government hospitals
and allied Institutions of Govt. of NCT of Delhi first
forward their requisitions, through e-mail, or the
Receipt & Issue (R&I) Branch, to the CPA, on
receipt of which, HOO, CPA marks such
requisitions to the Medical Officer In-Charge (MO
I/C), who alongwith dealing assistant, compiles the
demands and thereafter, places the consolidated
proposal before the HOO, CPA. Thereafter, the
HOO forwards the said proposal to the Deputy
Controller of Accounts [hereinafter referred to as
‘DCA’ in short] for verification of availability of
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 2 of 30
-- 2 of 30 --
budget. Thereafter, the DCA routes the file through
the Senior Accounts Officer/ Assistant Accounts
Officer/ Drawing & Disbursing Officer/ Cashier for
financial scrutiny and on completion of the financial
examination, the file is processed back through DCA
to the HOO, CPA and upon approval at the above
stated CPA level, the HOO forwards the file to the
DGHS for final approval, who is the Competent
Authority;
3.3 Separate Committees are constituted by the
Competent Authority i.e. DGHS for preparing
technical specifications, GeM bid formulation, pre-
qualification and technical evaluation and price bid
evaluation and justification of the equipments
requisitioned by various Government hospitals and
allied Institutions. After approval of the proposal by
the Competent Authority i.e. DGHS, the concerned
file is received by the HOO, CPA, who in turn
forwards the file to the Bid Evaluation Committee
for evaluation of the technical and financial bids in
accordance with the prescribed procedure; and on
completion of the evaluation process, the file is
placed before the Purchase Committee/Public
Tender Committee (PTC), as the case may be, for its
consideration and recommendations. Thereafter, the
file is forwarded to the Financial Bid Opening
Committee, where the financial bids are opened and
the Lowest (L-1) bidder is identified and on
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 3 of 30
-- 3 of 30 --
completion of proceedings by the said Committee,
the file is returned to the HOO, CPA, who thereafter
forwards it to the DCA, CPA and from DCA, CPA,
the file is processed through Senior Accounts
Officer/ Assistant Accounts Officer/Drawing and
Disbursing Officer (Senior AO/AAO/DDO) and
thereafter to the Cashier, following which, it is
routed back through the Senior AO/AAO/DDO to
the DCA, CPA, and thereafter to the HOO, CPA.
Thereafter, the HOO, CPA submits the complete file
before the DGHS, who is the Competent Authority,
for grant of final administrative approval and upon
receipt of such approval from DGHS, the file is
returned back to the HOO, CPA, who thereafter
forwards the same to the Medical Officer In-charge
(MO In-charge) for preparation of the Supply Order
in favour of the successful L-1 bidder and after the
Supply Order is prepared, it is again submitted to the
HOO, CPA and upon approval of the DGHS, the
Supply Order is issued to the L-1 bidder;
3.4 It is contended that the aforesaid procedure is the
established and uniform practice followed by the
CPA in all procurement matters. Ld. Counsel
submitted that the procurement files relating to the
Tenders in question were also processed strictly in
accordance with the said standard procedure and
applicant/accused did not exercise any independent
or unilateral authority outside the prescribed
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 4 of 30
-- 4 of 30 --
administrative and financial workflow and every
step in the procurement process was undertaken by
the concerned Committees and Officers in
accordance with the applicable rules and procedures
before obtaining the final approval of DGHS;
3.5 It is further contended that the processing and
payment of bills at the CPA is also governed by a
structured multi-level procedure involving several
Officers and Authorities. According to Ld. Counsel
of applicant/accused, the bills, duly certified by the
Inspection Committee constituted at the DGHS
Store, are first received in the Receipt & Issue (R&I)
Branch of the CPA and the HOO, CPA marks the
bills to the Medical Officer In-Charge (MO I/C),
who scrutinise and processes the same before
placing them before the HOO. Thereafter, the HOO
forwards the bills to the DCA, CPA, for financial
scrutiny. DCA marks the file to the Senior Accounts
Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer/Drawing &
Disbursing Officer (SAO/AAO/DDO), who further
routes it to the Cashier for verification and upon
completion of the financial checks, the file is routed
back through SAO/AAO/DDO to the DCA and
thereafter to the HOO, CPA, who forwards it to the
Competent Authority i.e. DGHS, for final approval.
After the final approval by DGHS, the file is
received back at the CPA, where the HOO marks it
to the Medical Officer In-Charge for preparation of
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 5 of 30
-- 5 of 30 --
the final bills and thereafter, the final bills are placed
before the HOO and upon approval, are again
marked to the Medical Officer In-Charge for diary,
dispatch and release of payment along with the
main file;
3.6 Ld. Counsel pointed out that an Inspection
Committee at the DGHS Store, verifies the
equipments upon receipt, and the inspection reports
are forwarded through R&I Branch to the office of
CPA for further processing and thus, the entire
process is carried out through multiple levels of
administrative, financial and technical scrutiny, and
no individual Officer exercises exclusive control
over the processing or payment of bills;
3.7 Ld. Counsel contended that after registration of the
FIR, the applicant/accused had duly joined the
investigation before IO on 18-06-2026, on which
date, he was arrested by IO and during police
custody, he was extensively interrogated, confronted
with documentary and electronic material; his house
was also searched, however, no incriminating
material against applicant/ accused, was recovered
during such search;
3.8 Ld. Counsel submitted that the applicant/accused is
having an unblemished service record and he has no
previous involvement in any other criminal activity
and no departmental action was ever initiated against
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 6 of 30
-- 6 of 30 --
him. While placing the copy of suspension order of
the applicant/accused on record, Ld. Counsel
claimed that the applicant/accused was placed under
suspension on 09.06.2026 on account of
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings
against him;
3.9 It is argued that the applicant had joined as HOO on
11-08-2025 and he was not the custodian of relevant
records relating to procuments of the
medicines/surgical items/ medical equipments.
In this regard, Ld. Counsel also referred to the
copies of relevant Office Orders, which are filed as
Annexures B to D, in order to bring home his point
that all the files relating to the Tenders relating to
procurement of said items/articles were handed over
by concerned official/custodian of such records, to
his/her successor in interest on 12-06-2026, and
thus, there is no reason as to why the
applicant/accused would have retained the files
relating to the Tenders in question with him. He,
therefore, contended that such allegations are totally
false and same have been levelled against him, in
order to create false ground to support the offences
invoked against him in this case;
3.10 It is further argued that no offence under the PC Act,
is made out against the applicant/accused, inasmuch
as neither there is any evidence regarding demand or
acceptence of illegal gratification from his side, nor
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 7 of 30
-- 7 of 30 --
there is recovery of any bribe money either from his
possession or at his instance, despite the fact that his
police custody was granted to the investigation
agence and his house search was also carried out by
the IO;
3.11 It is further argued that the applicant/accused has
even otherwise co-operated throughout the
investigation; and there is no allegation of tampering
or manipulating of record by him in any manner.
Ld. Counsel also submitted that the
applicant/accused is not at all in a position to temper
with any official record in any manner;
3.12 Apart from above, it has also been argued that the
entire case of the prosecution is based upon
documentary evidence, which is either already
seized; or is in custody of government Authority and
thus, there is no possibility of applicant/ accused
tampering with the documentary and electronic
evidence in any manner. Ld. Counsel also submitted
that the applicant/accused has deep roots in the
society and he, being public servant, is not a flight
risk; and
3.13 While relying upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of ‘Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.’, reported as (2011)
1 SCC 694 and ‘Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh And Another’, reported as (2018) 3 SCC 22,
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 8 of 30
-- 8 of 30 --
Ld. Counsel further submitted that liberty of an
individual is of paramount importance and it is trite
law that grant of bail is rule and its rejection is an
exception. He further submitted that the applicant/
accused is continuously in custody since 18-06-2026
and his continued custody would amount to his pre-
trial punishment. He further submitted that the
investigation may take considerable time and thus,
no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant/accused behind the bars. He, therefore,
urged that the applicant/accused may be admitted to
regular bail on such terms and conditions as may be
deemed fit by this Court.
4. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel of
applicant/accused also relied upon the following judicial
precedents:
4.1 ‘Sanjay Chandra v. CBI’ reported as 2012 (1) SCC
40;
4.2 ‘Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Directorate of
Enforcement’, Bail Application 1878/2021, decided
on 12.03.2025 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court;
4.3 ‘Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. The State of
Maharashtra’, reported as 2024 INSC 645; and
4.4 ‘Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P.’,
reported as 2012 (8) SCC 547.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
5. While opposing the bail application, Ld. SPP for State,
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 9 of 30
-- 9 of 30 --
inter alia, advanced the following arguments:
5.1 The applicant/ accused was HOO, CPA, DGHS, at
the relevant time, when he criminally connived with
other arrested accused persons, private persons and
private entities & actively participated in
cartelization in bid process, thereby awarding
Tenders in question to the entities of their choice by
adopting illegal method;
5.2 Applicant/accused had intentionally left the
tendering process on GeM to award Tenders to
the companies/firms under the control of
co-accused Rajiv Kumar; and therefore, he has not
only cheated the government; but also the other
potential bidders;
5.3 The applicant/accused removed other officials, who
were causing hindrance in his criminal activities,
from doing their job;
5.4 Items, which were not even needed at the relevant
times, were not only purchased, but were purchased
at an exorbitant price, thereby causing illegal loss to
the tune of over 750 Crores, to the Govt. Exchequer,
whereas, the applicant/accused was one of the
important custodians of the Exchequer;
5.5 Applicant/accused had kept all such tainted files in
his custody and after payments were made against
those purchases, the files were removed so as to save
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 10 of 30
-- 10 of 30 --
himself and his accomplices from the law;
5.6 The applicant/ accused also destroyed or
concealed his mobile phone that was being use by
him at the relevant time/ period, just to destroy the
evidences;
5.7 During the course of investigation, statements of two
material witnesses were got recorded u/s 183 BNSS,
2023 and both of them have corroborated the
allegations and circumstances emerging during
investigation regarding procurement process,
functioning of CPA and the role played by the
accused persons, including the applicant/accused
herein;
5.8 Investigation has revealed that the role of
applicant/accused was confined not merely to the
processing or facilitating the procurement proposals,
but also that the procurement process was used for
facilitating the release of government funds in
favour of selected beneficiaries entities connected
with other accused persons, including co-accused
Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Rangila and the funds so
released were thereafter diverted through various
accounts and transactions. In view thereof, Ld. SPP
contended that the role of applicant/accused as
integral part of larger conspiracy, is still under probe
and complete money trail and ultimate beneficiaries
are still being identified;
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 11 of 30
-- 11 of 30 --
5.9 While referring to the allegations appearing in the
FIR and the investigation carried out so far, Ld. SPP
submitted that during the visit of team members of
DOV to the office of CPA on 18-05-2026, the
applicant/accused had abruptly left his office and the
officers found present over there, had informed
DOV team members that the relevant files pertaining
to procurement of Portable X-Ray Machines, bed
sheets and linen Items, C-Arm radiological
equipments, Anaesthesia Work Station, ORS,
surgical items and medicines, were in the custody of
the applicant/accused; and they were unable to
produce the same in his absence. He pointed out that
despite repeated efforts made by them to contact the
applicant/accused, his mobile number was found
switched off/not reachable and he did not respond to
the calls made by them;
5.10 Ld. SPP contended that apart from above referred
circumstances and the conduct of applicant/accused,
the act of issuing order dated 11-11-2025 by him,
thereby issuing direction to retain tenders relating
files alongwith relevant bills in his custody, coupled
with the fact that those files/documents have gone
missing and could not be recovered by the
Investigating Agency till date, would clearly
corroborate the allegations levelled against the
applicant/accused in respect of commission of
offences involved in this case;
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 12 of 30
-- 12 of 30 --
5.11 Ld. SPP, on instructions, further submitted that two
fresh complaints dated 24-02-2026 and 23-04-2026 -
one relating to M/s Red Mamba Force Pvt. Ltd.,
which was engaged for providing outsourced
Radiographers for Mobile Digital Chest X-Ray
Screening activities under the TB Mukt Bharat
Abhiyan, Delhi; and another for hiring Sanitation
Services floated by DGHS through GeM Portal,
respectively– have also been received by ACB,
wherein it is alleged that while using similar modus
operandi, Tenders were awarded in favour of the
company namely M/s Red Mamba Force Pvt. Ltd.,
which is also associated with co-accused Rajiv
Kumar @ Rajiv Rangila. In this regard, Ld. SPP
pointed out that work order was allegedly issued
physically in favour of said company against bid
dated 23-04-2026, despite the fact that bid continued
to be reflecting as ‘pending’ on GeM Portal;
5.12 Ld. SPP also pointed that the applicant/accused had
sent e-mails to various hospitals/Chest Clinics
falling under GNCT of Delhi, thereby directing them
to permit the Radiographers appointed by the
aforesaid firm, to join the concerned Medical
Institutions. He also pointed out that the files
pertaining to both the abovesaid bids, are also not
available at CPA and the circumstances relating to
their non-availability are still under investigation;
5.13 Ld. SPP also drew attention of the Court towards the
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 13 of 30
-- 13 of 30 --
disclosure statement made by co-accused Neeraj
Chopra, in order to bring home his point that the
applicant/ accused used to get tainted procurement
files cleared by exerting undue pressure upon the
Officers posted in CPA; and by referring to the
directions/ telephone calls of ‘Bhai’, while referring
to co-accused Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Rangila;
5.14 Ld. SPP also pointed that whenever regular DDO
was not available, the bills pertaining to the
questioned bids, used to be taken to PAO by the
applicant/accused himself, after signing those bills in
place of DDO; and thus, the said conduct on the part
of applicant/ accused would clearly point out
towards his complicity in the commission of
offences alleged in this case;
5.15 Ld. SPP contended that the case is still under active
investigation and several crucial aspects, including
confrontation of bank records, digital evidence, and
to unearth the full extent of conspiracy, are pending
and financial network and the role of other
connected persons in the conspiracy, is yet to be
established;
5.16 Further, the applicant/accused is to be confronted
with other accused persons and suspects, for which
his police custody may be required; and
5.17 Investigation w.r.t. the applicant/accused is not
concluded and in case, the applicant/accused is
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 14 of 30
-- 14 of 30 --
released on bail, then, he may influence the
witnesses, tamper with the evidence and may
destroy the digital records, as has been done by him
before his arrest. Thus, it is prayed that the bail
application may be rejected.
6. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. SPP also
relied upon the following judgments:
6.1.1 ‘Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI Hyderabad’
reported as 2013(7) SCC 466;
6.1.2 ‘State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
Porwal & Anr.’, reported as (1987) 2 SCC
364;
6.1.3 ‘Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay
Sai Reddy’ reported as (2013) 7 Scale 15;
and
6.1.4 ‘Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of
Punjab’, having neutral citation 2025
INSC 320
Analysis & Conclusion
7. Before proceeding to deal with the rival contentions raised
on behalf of both the sides, it would be apposite to discuss,
in brief, the case of the prosecution, as borne out from the
FIR and the material available in the police file.
7.1 The complainant namely Sh. Atul Ramchiary,
Deputy Director (Vigilance), DOV, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, had filed a complaint against the
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 15 of 30
-- 15 of 30 --
applicant/accused namely Vinod Kumar Ranga, his
subordinates/associates, Rajiv Rangila (co-accused)
and his associates, regarding irregularities in the
procurement of medicines, surgical items and other
consumable equipments, in order to cause illegal
gain to themselves and illegal loss to the Govt.
Exchequer, while alleging therein, inter alia, that
co-accused Rajiv Rangila had been tying up with
manufacturers of medical items, fixing rates at
which they would supply medical items, fixing
kickbacks to be given back in cash. Fake
companies/firms with fake owners were created by
said co-accused Rajiv Rangila and some of such
fake companies/firms are F Med Devices,
Technocrats, Raj Shree, Aashi Surgical and
Pharmaceuticals, M Sahib and Sons Pvt. Ltd. These
fake companies were created in others’ names; but
the actual owner and operator of all these
companies/firms was co-accused Rajiv Rangila;
7.2 The pre-decided manufacturer company declares any
of these companies so owned/operated by co-
accused Rajiv Rangila's, as its Authorized
Distributor. Thereafter, Tender document with
skewed restrictive specifications, used to be
prepared by co-accused Rajiv Rangila in connivance
with the manufacturer company. These
specifications and tender terms and conditions were
tailor-made as were suitable to the pre-decided
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 16 of 30
-- 16 of 30 --
company and used to be supplied to the
applicant/accused Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga, HOO,
CPA, who used to give it to the Tender Committee.
The specifications and tender documents were being
forcibly approved by the Tender Committee, by
using threats of action against them, if they ever
resisted signing them. Such tender documents were
then presented by the applicant/accused Dr. Vinod
Kumar Ranga, HOO, CPA, to co-accused namely
Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS, who used to give
approval to these tender specifications, terms and
conditions. The applicant/accused Dr. Vinod Kumar
Ranga, HOO, CPA used to upload the Tenders on
either e-procurement portal or GeM portal.
Fake companies of co-accused Rajiv Rangila used to
submit the bids in tender. Turnover, experience and
performance criteria were kept at exorbitantly high
levels, with intent to discourage other bidders from
participating in the tender. Though, these companies
of co-accused Rajiv Rangila did not possess any
turnover, experience and performance; but they were
declared qualified in the Tender by accused officers,
including the applicant/accused. Rest of all bidding
companies/firms were disqualified in technical
evaluation without any ground. Technical evaluation
sheet was prepared by co-accused Rajiv Rangila on
the same day and used to be given to the
applicant/accused Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga, the then
HOO, CPA, which was being approved in few hours
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 17 of 30
-- 17 of 30 --
by co-accused Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS.
Financial bid used to be secretly opened on the same
day and the financial bid evaluation was not being
made public. Tender was being awarded to the fake
company of co-accused Rajiv Rangila. Approval to
place order was being given on the same day by
co-accused Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS. Though,
it was mandatory that the work order had to be
awarded on GeM portal for tender done on GeM
portal; and to be uploaded online, Purchase Order
was being issued on the same day manually, rather
than being issued on GeM portal; or being published
on e-procurement portal. Manipulation was
allegedly being done to the level that it was shown
to the public and other suppliers on e-procurement
portal; or GeM portal that Tender is still under
process, and is yet to be awarded and status of tender
was shown as “Active” on online
procurement portal;
7.3 Medical items were supplied by Manufacturer
Company to CPA.Fake companies of co-accused
Rajiv Rangila used to submit the bills against those
supplies to CPA and the payment was being released
in one or two days. It is also alleged that the Tenders
which had since long, been already awarded and for
which full payment had already been released, are
still visible on GeM portal as ‘Active’ tenders; or
under process; or that the financial bid evaluation
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 18 of 30
-- 18 of 30 --
was under process. With this modus operandi, the
general public and other companies could not come
to know that whether the Tender floated by CPA had
been finalized or not, and/or to whom order was
being placed and at what rates;
7.4 It is also alleged that the payments to medicine
supplying companies (which were previously
supplying medicines to CPA/DGHS in previous
years) had not been done by CPA for the last 2 years
and the payment of tainted Tenders done since
October, in which co-accused Rajiv Rangila was
involved, was made either on the same day or on
next day. Tenders to the tune of several hundred
crores were allegedly awarded while using such
modus operandi. The FIR in question contains
details of some of such tainted Bids/Tenders like
purchase of X-Ray Machines, Procurement of Bed
Sheets, Pillow Covers and other linen items,
Procurement of C-Arm radiological equipment and
others;
7.5 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR in question
came to be registered u/s 7A PC Act r/w 61(2) BNS
2023, on 02.06.2026, and prior approval u/s 17A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(As amended in 2018), was obtained for conducting
the investigation against the Govt. Officials
involved, including the applicant/accused, who is
named in the FIR itself; and
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 19 of 30
-- 19 of 30 --
7.6 A careful perusal of the police file, would reveal that
during investigation, efforts were made to recover
the files through which the alleged purchases were
done by the CPA/DGHS. The accused persons
namely Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal and Dr. Vinod Kumar
Ranga (the applicant herein) were directed to find
out those files and to hand over the same; but none
of those files could be recovered. Subsequently, the
offences u/s 13(1)/13(2) of POC Act r/w
316(5)/318(4)/238 BNS were also added during the
course of investigation.
8. The investigation carried out so far, shows that the
documents/information from the CPA/DGHS and the
office of the DGHS, GeM and Banks have been taken; and
the Electronic gadgets have been seized from the office of
the CPA, DGHS and concerned banks. Further, details of
the payments made to the accused companies/Firms, were
also taken from the CPA, PAO concerned and the Bank,
and on analysis of these documents, it is allegedly found
that the applicant/accused Vinod Kumar Ranga, HOO,
CPA and co-accused Dr. Vatsala Aggarwal, DGHS,
hatched a criminal conspiracy with each other and other
known & unknown persons; floated Bid to procure
portable X-Ray machine, for which they prepared the Bid
documents and uploaded the same on GeM portal, with
information that only one X-Ray machine was to be
bought, so that such information may discourage the
manufacturers and importers from participating in the bid,
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 20 of 30
-- 20 of 30 --
seeing the small quantity. However, they left the bidding
process in between and gave the supply order to
co-accused Rajiv Rangila’s firm namely M/s F-Med
Devices. Moreover, it was allegedly well within the
knowledge of the accused persons, including the
applicant/accused herein that the required infrastructure
was not enough with the clinics and the hospital for use of
448 such Portable X-Ray machines, still they purchased
448 such Portable X- Ray machines at an exorbitant price
of Rs.38 lakh each, whereas, the accused Firm had
allegedly purchased the same for an amount of
approximately Rs.14,92,000/- each (inclusive of Al
Software) from the manufacturer namely M/s Prognosys
Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd., which has been confirmed by
the officer of M/s Prognosys Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. In
this manner, it is alleged that the accused persons,
including the applicant/accused herein, has caused huge
loss to the Govt. exchequer.
9. Likewise, the accused persons, including the
applicant/accused, are alleged to have committed similar
crime in purchase of Linen, for which supply order was
again given to one M/s Sangam Gram Udyog Samiti,
which is allegedly controlled by co-accused Rajiv Kumar.
Ld. SPP of State has informed the Court that during the
course of investigation, it is found that similar modus
operandi has been used to cheat and embezzle the Govt.
Funds in purchase of C-Arm Radiological Equipment and
other consumable medicines and surgical items.
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 21 of 30
-- 21 of 30 --
10. Not only this, the investigation has also revealed that the
files pertaining to Bids for purchase of X-Ray Machines,
C-Arm Machines, Hingh/Mid End Anaesthesia Work
Station, Linen and other items, were containing all the
relevant details such as the details of entities which had
raised the demands, officials who had compiled the same
and had initiated the procurement process. Those files also
contained details of Members of different
Teams/Committees, who had formulated the Bids
documents and terms and conditions for the Bidders,
Team/Committee for finalizing the specification of items
to be purchased, Team/Committee for finalization of
Technical evaluation and Financial evaluation. However,
none of those files could be traced and the
applicant/accused namely Vinod Kumar Ranga, in criminal
conspiracy with the co accused persons and other unknown
persons/entities, intentionally destroyed those files, thereby
causing disappearance of crucial evidences of the crimes
committed by them.
11. The IO has pointed out to the Court that investigation
carried out by him, has led to the recovery of an Order
bearing File No. F1 (19)/48/DGHS/CPA2025/2442 dated
11.11.25, issued by applicant/accused Vinod Kumar
Ranga, which reads as under:
“xxxx
In order to ensuring confidentiality, preventing unauthorized
use or disclosure of the contents and to maintain a record of
movement whenever the file is issued or referred to any staff
member, it is hereby ordered that the Tender Related File
along with relevant bids shall be kept in the safe custody of
the Head of Office, CPA with immediate effect. All concerned
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 22 of 30
-- 22 of 30 --
staff are instructed to comply with this order.
xxxxx”
12. As per the statement of staff posted at the CPA/DGHS,
Shakarpur, New Delhi, the aforesaid Order was complied
with and all such Bid/Tender related files used to be
retained by the applicant/accused Vinod Kumar Ranga and
later on, were possibly destroyed in connivance with co
accused persons in order to save himself and other co
accused from the rigours of law.
13. Not only this, the documents and information supplied by
CPA, PAO and different banks, also suggest that the
amounts were immediately transferred into the account of
co-accused Firms/companies after they supplied the items
to the DGHS whereas the amounts of other vendors are
kept pending for over two years of supply of items by
them. It is also alleged that the amounts from these
accounts, were immediately transferred into hundreds of
other accounts and those account holders entities are not
even related to the items supplied to the CPA/DGHS. From
those accounts, money in crores have been withdrawn
either in cash or were further transferred to other accounts
to siphon of the Govt. funds.
14. It is further alleged that the accused persons, including the
applicant/accused, intentionally did not follow their lawful
duty and violated not only General Financial Rules, but
also violated CVC guidelines on Tendering and
Procurement, just to cause illegal loss to the Govt.
exchequer and illegal gain to themselves. Further, the
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 23 of 30
-- 23 of 30 --
applicant/accused Dr. Vinod Kumar Ranga allegedly even
removed some officials from doing their lawful duties after
they refused to sign these tainted files finding irregularities
in them.
15. There is no reason as to why the tender documents
uploaded on GeM Portal, against the Tenders in question,
were in respect of limited quantity of items, and later on,
the quantity of such items were allegedly increased
manifolds, while placing the Purchase Orders with the L-1,
and that too manually, thereby by-passing the requisite
procedure and rules prescribed in that regard. The same
was done with a view to discourage the manufacturers and
entities to participate in the bid process. Not only this, the
tender documents were allegedly got forcibly approved
from Members of various Committees and supply orders
were issued to only few selective entities, including
entities/ firms of co-accused Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv
Rangila, possibly with an oblique motive to give undue
favour to those entities. Not only this, the bills issued by
the suppliers for the items supplied against the Tenders in
question, were also allegedly got approved and payments
against those bills were allegedly released within no time.
On the other hand, there were various bills submitted by
other suppliers against other Tenders, which were
allegedly pending payments for the last more than two
years. Again, it would be anybody’s guess as to what were
those compelling reasons to do so.
16. It is informed to the Court that on 18-06-2026, when team
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 24 of 30
-- 24 of 30 --
members of DoV had visited the office of CPA,
the applicant/accused had not only fled away from there,
but also did not respond to the repeated calls made to him.
Not only this, he also did not make his mobile
phone available to the Investigating Agency for
the purpose of investigation. Such conduct on the part
of applicant/accused would point out towards his
complicity in the commission of offences alleged in
this case.
17. Further, the status of the Tenders in question, was
continued to be shown as ‘active’ on GeM Portal, despite
the fact that supply orders against those Tenders had
already been allegedly issued to those few selective entities
and even payments in respect of bills received against the
Tenders in question, had already been released. In this
regard, IO has drawn attention of this Court towards reply
dated 15-06-2026 purportedly issued by GeM, wherein,
it is categorically mentioned that as per data available on
GeM Portal, F Med Devices (which purportedly belong to
co-accused Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Rangila), had not
obtained any purchase orders/supply orders through GeM
Portal. Not only this, said reply also recites that in respect
of other bids, no demand/supply/purchase order was
created till date. In case the applicant/accused had duly
followed the well structured procedure and route while
processing the Tenders in question, as is argued on his
behalf, then there was no occasion to increase the total
quantity of the bid item(s), as were ordered to be supplied
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 25 of 30
-- 25 of 30 --
vis-à-vis shown in the bid document uploaded on the GeM
portal; and/or to show the status of those Tenders as
‘active’ on GeM Portal, despite the fact that supply orders
against those Tenders had already been allegedly issued
and even payments in respect of bills received against
them, had already been released.
18. Moreover, the procedure regarding procurement of items
through GeM Portal, expressly provides that Purchase
Order is placed upon Lowest Bidder (L-1); and once the
supply is made by such L-1, the bills are generated through
GeM Portal itself and are submitted with the concerned
government department for payment. It is alleged that said
procedure was never followed in respect of the Tenders
in question.
19. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant/accused was
posted as HOO, CPA and all the bills submitted by the
suppliers were continuously routed through him, before
their final approval by Competent Authority. That being
so, it was the duty of applicant/accused to satisfy himself
that the requisite procedure of procurement through
GeM Portal and GFR were duly complied with, before
making his recommendation for placement of Purchase
Orders with L-1; and also at the time of forwarding the
bills, so submitted against the Tenders in question,
while ensuring that GeM generated bills are submitted in
their office, or not.
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 26 of 30
-- 26 of 30 --
20. In this regard, there are statements u/s 180 BNSS, 2023
and u/s 183 BNSS, 2023 of two material witnesses
recorded/got recorded during investigation, which would
show that the applicant/accused had not only by-passed the
requisite procedure of procurement through GeM Portal,
but also violated relevant rules of GFR and also allegedly
pressurized the officials working at various posts in the
office of CPA for this purpose, as part of the criminal
conspiracy hatched amongst him and the co-
accused persons.
21. Had it been the situation, where the applicant/accused
would have acted in bona fide manner, it should have
aroused his suspicion at the time of making his
recommendations regarding issuance of Purchase Orders in
question to the alleged selective entities, as also at the time
of granting his approval while processing the bills
submitted against the Tenders in question. Such conduct
on the part of applicant/accused, has allegedly caused loss
to the tune of several hundred of crores to the State
Exchequer.
22. There is no gainsaying that the applicant/accused was
holding responsible position, and his alleged acts constitute
economic offences, which not only caused severe damage
to the health system of GNCT, Delhi, but also had the
effect of weakening the economic fabric of the nation, as a
whole, besides having shaken the faith of members of the
society in the public administration system. In the case of
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 27 of 30
-- 27 of 30 --
Court has held as under:
“5. .....The entire Community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State
are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in
the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An
economic offence is committed with cool calculation
and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit
regardless of the consequence to the Community. A
disregard for the interest of the Community can be
manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and
faith of the Community in the system to administer
justice in an even handed manner without fear of
criticism from the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the national economy and national interest...."
23. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra).
24. In another cited case of V. Vijay Sai Reddy (supra),
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State
and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept
in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds
for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means
the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy
it as to whether there is a genuine case against the
accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence
establishing the quilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Likewise, in the case of ‘K.C. Sareen v. CBI Chandigarh’,
reported as (2001) 6 SCC 584, Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 28 of 30
-- 28 of 30 --
“12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a
monstrous dimension in India. tentacles have started
grappling even the institutions created for the
protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are
intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and
orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong
legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the
corrupt public servants could even paralyse the
functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the
democratic polity....”
26. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the cases cited on behalf of applicant/accused.
However, it is trite law that there cannot be any straight-
jacket formula while deciding the bail applications and
each bail application needs to be decided on the basis of
facts and circumstances of each case. All the cases as
relied upon by Ld. Counsel of the applicant/accused, are
thus distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the
present case, for the reasons already noted hereinbefore.
27. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, including the nature of allegations, gravity of the
offences alleged, the role allegedly played by the
applicant/accused, the stage of investigation, severity of
punishment in the event of conviction and in view of the
discussion made hereinbefore, the Court is of the
considered view that the applicant/accused is not entitled
to the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently, the
bail application is hereby dismissed and stands
disposed off.
28. However, it is hereby made clear that nothing mentioned
hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 29 of 30
-- 29 of 30 --
on merits of the case and the observations made
hereinabove are solely for the purpose of deciding the
present bail application.
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-01
Rouse Avenue Court Complex
New Delhi/17-08-2026(r)
Bail Matter No.211/2026, FIR:7/2026, PS: ACB Page 30 of 30
-- 30 of 30 --