Rajasthan High Court denies bail to doctors in Rs 7 crore RGHS scam, directs speedy trial

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused bail to a government orthopaedic surgeon and a radiologist accused of drawing payments from the Rajasthan Government Health Scheme on the strength of consultation slips prepared in the names of beneficiaries who never attended the hospital, observing that where a doctor uses the trust derived from his position and profession to act contrary to law, the effect is not confined to the individual but tells upon the entire medical establishment and public confidence in it.

Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that at this stage it would not be just to hold that the petitioners had no involvement in the commission of the alleged offences, and that the truth of the facts of the case could be examined by the trial court on merits.

Delivering the order in Hindi, the Court observed:

“A doctor occupies an extremely important and respected position in society. A doctor is expected to discharge his knowledge, experience and professional obligations with complete integrity, honesty and human sensitivity. The medical profession is not merely a means of livelihood, but a responsible profession directly connected with human life and health. In such a situation, if a doctor uses the trust obtained from his position and profession to act contrary to law, its effect does not remain confined to the person concerned, but adversely affects the entire medical system and the confidence of the general public.”

The Court added that the object of a State health scheme is to make medical facilities available to needy and eligible patients, and that obtaining financial benefit under such a scheme by preparing forged records or records divorced from reality, if proved, is not only contrary to the purpose of the scheme but reflects serious disregard for the system established by law.

The two applications arose from a single FIR and were decided together. FIR No. 11/2026 was registered at the Special Police Station, SOG, District ATS and SOG, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the first petitioner, and under Sections 316(2), 336, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) against the second.

According to the prosecution, Dr. Kamal Kumar Agarwal (M.S. Ortho) was appointed Assistant Professor, and later Associate Professor, at Shri Kalyan Medical College and its attached hospital, Sikar, on Jun 19, 2022, and attended the outpatient department daily. Dr. Vijay Mund and Dr. Banwarilal ran the Vijay and B. Lal Imaging and Diagnostic Centre near S.K. Hospital, Sikar, under a partnership deed executed on Mar 2, 2020, in which the two doctors and their wives held 50 per cent each, with a joint bank loan taken and Dr. Banwarilal’s house mortgaged for it. The centre was authorised by the RGHS department on Feb 18, 2023 to conduct tests for cardholders.

The prosecution case is that between September 2023 and August 2025, consultation slips were written in the names of 1,390 RGHS beneficiaries, on the basis of which the diagnostic centre drew about Rs 1.31 crore from the scheme. The Court recorded that the petitioners, along with co-accused, were alleged to have caused the State Government a loss of about Rs 7 crore by getting fabricated test reports prepared.

Illustrative instances placed on record were set out in the order. In one, a beneficiary who had taken consultation at a private hospital in Sikar on Oct 9, 2024 was shown the next day as having been prescribed four MRI scans by Dr. K.K. Agarwal without being examined, against which about Rs 18,000 was drawn; the prosecution stated he was at the time admitted at Shri Kalyan Hospital and had never met the doctor. In another, a patient referred by a different physician had his genuine MRI reports re-issued under Dr. K.K. Agarwal’s reference bearing the same UHID number, with the report uploaded to the RGHS portal showing the scan as having been done with contrast when the report given to the patient was not.

Appearing for Dr. K.K. Agarwal, counsel submitted that his role was confined to clinically examining the patient and writing such investigations as were medically necessary, while verification of the beneficiary’s identity, entry of particulars in the scheme’s system, preparation of bills and submission of claims to the government were the independent function of the diagnostic centre and hospital staff, over which he had neither control nor administrative authority. It was urged that the FIR contained no specific allegation that he had himself forged any document, tampered with any record or made any false electronic entry, and that the ingredients of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy were not prima facie made out.

For Dr. Banwarilal, it was submitted that he was a radiologist who took voluntary retirement from government service in 2012, and that being merely a partner in the firm could not fasten personal criminal liability for every alleged irregularity, particularly when the RGHS portal work and claim submissions were largely handled by the co-accused, who was the registered specialist operating the machines and signing the reports. Counsel relied on a series of decisions including CBI v K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512, Mohammed Ibrahim v State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 and a coordinate bench order in Sondev Bansal v State of Rajasthan.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the applications, contending that the allegations were serious, that the material prima facie showed a well-planned misuse of the scheme, and that Dr. K.K. Agarwal had written MRI and CT scan investigations in patients’ names without actually seeing them, on the strength of which the private diagnostic centre obtained payment. Differences were said to have been found between the actual test reports and those uploaded on the RGHS portal.

Rejecting both applications without commenting on the merits, the Court held that having regard to the facts, the circumstances and the gravity of the offences alleged, it would not be appropriate to grant the petitioners the benefit of bail at this stage. Noting, however, that they had been in judicial custody for a considerable period, it expressed the expectation that the presiding officer of the trial court would fix proximate dates, issue effective process to secure the attendance of witnesses, record the statements of material witnesses on priority and endeavour to conclude the case expeditiously.

Title: Kamal Kumar @ K.K. Agarwal v State of Rajasthan; Dr. Banwarilal @ B. Lal v State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8307/2026 with No. 12205/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:32365]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Himanshu Agarwal and Mr. Arpit Gupta; Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Hem Bhushan Vedi

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP, with Mr. Saleh Mohd., Dy.S.P., SOG, Jaipur