Murder Of 19 Persons: Supreme Court Refuses Bail To Doctor Accused Of Persuading Patients To Undergo Angioplasty To Grab Benefits Under PMJAY Scheme

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain an SLP of a Doctor accused of persuading patients to undergo angioplasty with the intention to grab monetary benefits under Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY Scheme), who had challenged the Gujarat High Court's order refusing bail to him.

The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, emphasising that the accused doctor has taken money under the PMJAY scheme, thus defrauding not only the patients but also the Government.

A bail application was filed before the High Court by the Doctor who was accused under Sections 105 and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for causing the death of two patients who underwent angioplasty upon allegedly being forced by the Doctor and his team.

The High Court of Gujarat had held that the two deaths were not natural while dismissing the bail application.

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed, "The report of the medical board contends that for these persons angioplasty was not suggested, even then you called everyone for angioplasty, taking money under the government scheme, so you defrauded not only those persons, you defrauded the government also."

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for the Doctor, submitted, "Three accused out of eight were granted bail by the High Court...only to inform you. Main allegation is the conspiracy between me and the management of the hospital."

Refusing the contention, Justice Maheshwari said, "No, you are the main person...you are the Cardiologist."

The Court further said, "One point is that you are a Cardiologist. But you see what you did. You hold a medical camp...you convince everyone to come for angioplasty, even though angioplasty was not required. The report of the medical board contends that for these persons, angioplasty was not suggested, even then you called everyone for angioplasty, taking in money under the government scheme, so you defrauded not only those persons, you defrauded the government also. 19 persons from one village..."

"I was never in the camp. The camp is done by other Doctors of the Hospital. Khyati Hospital...six out of the eight accused are the main mastermind, are granted bail and five other directors of the management ", Singh replied.

It was further submitted that one Rahul Jain is the main person and has been described as the mastermind by the prosecution and the Doctor was never part of the camp.

Upon which, Justice Maheshwari suggested, "We can do one thing, you withdraw here...apply before the High Court."

However, the Singh further argued, "Except me, six out of the eight of the management were granted bail."

The Bench said, "We are granting you liberty to take the matter before the High Court...but we are not inclined in this case...this is the case of murder of 19 persons."

Singh, however, submitted that seven out of nineteen persons underwent angioplasty and that there are one twenty five witnesses in the case and that the challan has been filed in the case.

"Otherwise, we are always in professionals' favour. Always", Justice Maheshwari remarked.

Singh contended, "He was never part of the camp; the camp was being organised by the Hospital. The patients were not collected by me. I did not bring them in..."

The Court asked, "Where was the angioplasty done? Were you part of that hospital or not?"

Justice Maheshwari said, "We do camp in the name of my mother...I know how it is to be done. It is not a case were we can..."

Singh submitted, "Six out of eight are on bail, the Lordship may permit me to withdraw. It is only a factual position that three were granted bail only yesterday."

The Court said that if Singh is insisting on the Court recording the fact that others have been granted bail, it would be compelled to also say that though others have been granted bail, it is not inclined to grant bail in this case.

Resultantly, Singh requested for liberty to file the bail application at the High Court. The Court dismissed the SLP and noted that the High Court may consider the application "uninfluenced and independent" of the dismissal of the said SLP.

Background

An FIR was lodged on the complaint of an in-charge CDMO cum Civil Surgeon, as a medical camp was organised at Borisana village by Khyati Hospital and two out of seven patients died due to post procedure complications who underwent under angioplasty at Khyati Hospital.

The Appellant/accused is a Cardiologist and has been accused under Section 105 BNS, among others, as he forced the patients to undergo the procedure of angioplasty without their wish and without any need in some cases.

Cause Title: Prashant Versus The State Of Gujarat (SLP(Crl) No. 8123/2025 II-E)

Click here to read/download Order