AARTIBEN BALDEVBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The case against the respondent No.2 (accused) is under Ss. 7(a), 12, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant (applicant herein) has made a prayer for cancellation of bail where the grievance raised is that the respondent accused is a highly influential person and the applicant being the owner of Padmasiddha Hospital at GIDC, Ankleshwar had entrusted the administrative function of the Hospital to one - Hiren Vyas and the applicant had entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in the year 2022 under which the patients referred from ESIC Hospital to the applicant's hospital were to be treated cashless and the bills of the said cashless treatment as per the MOU were to be paid by ESIC. The applicant as a complainant states that the hospital had raised an amount of Rs.4.00 Crores and out of the said amount, interim billing amount of Rs.28,00,000.00 was made by UTI/ITSL Agency in the last two months and the bills were submitted before the Medical Superintendent who is the accused in the matter, which were to be paid within 5 days as per the MOU, but the bills were not cleared. The administrator of the Hospital - Hiren met the respondent No.2, where the grievance was raised about the non-clearance of the bills and thereafter, a complaint came to be filed alleging that the respondent No.2 had demanded Rs.2,50,000.00 through his P.A. - Sonu, who had called Hiren through his mobile instructing him to make the payment. It is alleged that on 18/4/2023 at about 7.30 pm, Sonu had contacted the administrator - Hiren on his mobile and gave instructions and accordingly, Hiren transferred an amount of Rs.50,000.00 to an SBI Account on 19/4/2023 and the remaining Rs.2,00,000.00 were to be paid on 20/4/2023 at Shalimar Hotel, Ankleshwar. Under such circumstances, a complaint came to be filed with the ACB Police Station.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Premal S. Rachh submitted that since the Hospital had entered into an MOU with ESIC and when the respondent No.2 is still on the post of clearance of bills, the applicant (Hospital) is finding it difficult to perform as per the MOU and thus, it is stated that since it is a case of ESIC, to set an example and to send a signal to the Society, the bail granted to respondent No.2 is required to be cancelled.