SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
Dr. Kishore Bisure - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. - Respondent
Bail Application No. 4055 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Subir Sarkar, a/w Sumit Erande a/w Ms. Keral Mehta, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State.
Mr.H.S. Venegavkar a/w Mr. Aayush Kedia, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 – ED.

Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 rights; bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence against the accused.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bail application filed by Accused No. 2 in connection with money laundering charges - Applicant arrested on 19.07.2023, has been in custody for 1 year 6 months 25 days - Allegations include approval of fabricated invoices and receiving kickbacks - Court found no prima facie evidence of direct involvement in fraudulent activities or proceeds of crime - Applicant granted bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 2, 31, 32)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution - The applicant's cooperation with the investigation and the absence of substantial progress in the trial were noted. (Paras 30, 31)

Table of Content
1. bail application filed (Para 1)
2. applicant arrested on 19.07.2023 (Para 2)
3. predicate offence registered (Para 3 , 4)
4. delay in filing complaint (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. submissions for bail (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. prosecution's case lacks evidence (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. bail granted with conditions (Para 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGEMENT :

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]

1. The present Application is filed by the Applicant – Accused No. 2,[Applicant is Accused No. 2 in the Prosecution Complaint filed by ED.] for grant of bail under Section 4 39 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 4 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PMLA’) in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/MBZO-1/63/2022 registered for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

2. Applicant was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (for short ‘ED’) on 19.07.2023. Applicant is incarcerated for 1 year 6 months 25 days. The Special Court rejected the bail Application preferred by the Application in Special PMLA Case No. 1500 of 2023 vide order dated 04.05.2024. Hence, the present Bail Application.

3. The predicate offence was registered on 24.08.2022 as FIR No. 0756 of 2022 with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 304A, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 readwith 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). On 12.10.2022 the case was transferred to Economic Offence Wing (for short ‘EOW’) Mumbai and renumbered as FIR No. 144 of 2022. Subsequently ECIR No. ECIR/MBZO-1/63/2022 was registered on 21.11.2022. Applicant was not named as Accused in the FIR and ECIR.

4. A complaint was lodged by one Member of Parliament alleging that during Covid-19 pandemic, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short ‘MCGM’) issued two Expressions of Interest (for short EOI) on 22.06.2023 and 25.06.2023 awarding contracts to various agencies including M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services Hospital Management Services for providing manpower supply to operate and manage ICU and general Units at Jumbo Covid Centres for the purpose of making treatment available to the citizens. Dr. Hemant Gupta, Sujit Mukund Patkar, Sanjay Madanlal Shah and Raju Salunke were its Partners.

5. A prima facie delay in filing the compliant is evident. Allegation in the complaint is that M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services, an entity established on 26.06.2020 with no prior experience in providing medical services was awarded a tender on the basis of its Partnership Deed of the same date. Further it is alleged that M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, submitted fabricated invoices and generated fabricated bills for medical services purportedly provided to and in regard with the Jumbo Covid Centre and swindled approximately Rs. 38 Crores of public money. It is alleged that Applicant in his capacity as the Dean of Dahisar Jumbo Covid Center is alleged to have received monthly kickbacks to verify and forward the fabricated bills based on fake / fabricated attendance sheets of staff record facilitating these fraudulent activities.

6. Briefly stated prosecution case is as follows:-

7. Primary allegation is that M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services did not fulfill its contractual obligation under the contract as there was under-employment of staff members and provisions contrary to EOI conditions which were shown through fabricated attendance sheets and staff records at Dahisar Jumbo Covid Center and public money received from the MCGM against those bills / invoices which were fraudulently transferred to Service Provider Firms namely M/s. M.S. Consultancy of Ravikant Singh and M/s. Elegant Multiservices of Sanjay Parab which were created at the instance of Partners of M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services.

8. Second allegation is that M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top