CRM-M-34960-2026 -1- (213) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34960-2026 Date of decision :28.07.2026 BIJENDER TAK ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.62 dated 22.03.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 468, 467, 470 of IPC) at Police Station Uklana, District Hisar. 2. The present FIR came to be registered on the basis of a complaint dated 22.03.2026 and the same reads as under:- “To, The Station House Officer, Uklana. Subject: Regarding taking legal action against Bijender Tak, Proprietor of Vidhata Nursing Home. Sir, Today, on 02.03.2026, an order was received from the Civil Surgeon, Hisar vide letter No. CS/2026/SPL-01-03 dated 22.03.2026, directing that a joint raid and inspection be JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -2- conducted along with the CM Flying Team and that action be taken against the guilty person as per rules. Pursuant to the said order, I, Dr. Vishwajeet, Medical Officer, along with Ram Bhagat, Assistant, Pradeep, Clerk, Sub-Divisional Civil Hospital, Barwala, and Woman Sub-Inspector Sunaina, Sub- Inspector Krishna Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector Surender Singh, Head Constable Jitender of CM Flying Squad, Hisar, constituted a joint team and conducted an inspection of Vidhata Nursing Home, situated opposite the New Tehsil, Uklana. During the inspection, Dr. Bijender Tak, Proprietor, was present at the spot. During inspection in his presence, it was found in the hospital computer on the Ayushman Portal that patients namely Mukeshi, Brijesh, Rani, Ramdei, Vikas and Sandanand were shown as admitted on the online portal. However, at the spot only Mukeshi and Ramdei were found admitted in Vidhata Nursing Home, whereas the remaining patients shown on the online Ayushman Portal were not found admitted in the Nursing Home. The Ayushman files kept at the spot were inspected. File No. 3185, Baby of Sonia, S/o Sandeep, resident of Bithmada, mentioned Date of Admission: 07.03.2026 and Date of Discharge: 15.03.2026. It was found that cutting/overwriting had been made in the date of discharge. The diagnosis column in the file was found blank and the column regarding consent of the parents was also found blank. In this regard, contact was made with Sandeep son of Chhabil, resident of Bithmada, father of Baby of Sonia, on mobile number 8529085246. He stated that his wife Sonia had delivered a child in Vidhata Nursing Home on 03.03.2026. His was completely healthy and after making payment to the doctor, they were discharged and went home on 07.03.2026 on the advice of the doctor. He further stated that on the same day, the doctor had asked for the Ayushman Card and Aadhaar Card of his wife Sonia for paperwork. A video recording was JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -3- made of his wife with the child and thumb impressions of his wife were also obtained. Thereafter, Sandeep was called to the spot and his statement was recorded. The signatures appearing in English on Ayushman File No. 3185 were shown to him. He stated that those signatures had not been made by him as he signs in Hindi. He put his signatures in Hindi on the left side of the file. He further stated that the child shown on the portal relating to the said file was not his child. After 07.03.2026, his child was never again admitted in Vidhata Nursing Home till date. Along with him, his neighbour Smt. Meena W/o Krishna had come. She stated that Sonia had been discharged from Vidhata Nursing Home on 07.03.2026 and that she had been staying with the mother and child. The child had remained at the house in Village Bithmada up to 22.03.2026 and had never been admitted in any hospital. On checking Sonia's Ayushman Card on the portal, it was found that an amount of Rs.48,000/- had been pre-authorised and approved through her Ayushman Card. On 22.03.2026, the portal was showing the status as "Claim Pending." The Incharge of CM Flying informed that secret information had been received regarding this Vidhata Nursing Home, on the basis of which inspection was conducted and numerous serious irregularities were found. A separate inspection report regarding the same was prepared. During inspection, from the statement of the father of Baby of Sonia, inquiry from neighbours who had come from the village, and the fact that the mother of the child did not identify the photograph of the child uploaded on the portal as her child, it stood established that Baby of Sonia was not found to have remained admitted in Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana from 07.03.2026 to 15.07.2026. Further, from the statement of Sandeep, the signatures appearing on the Ayushman file were found to be forged. It was also found that even on 22.03.2026, three patients shown on the portal were not present in the JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -4- hospital at the time of inspection. Therefore, Bijender son of Om Prakash Tak, proprietor of Vidhata Nursing Home, by fraudulently showing Baby of Sonia admitted in his hospital and by misusing the Government scheme Ayushman Bharat, has committed cheating. Hence, legal action be taken against the said Bijender in accordance with law. Attached herewith is the original copy of the inspection/inquiry report. Sd/- Vishwajeet, Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Civil Hospital, Barwala, Hisar Dated: 22.03.2026” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on suspicion alone. No actual loss has been suffered as Rs.48,000/- is yet to be claimed under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. The case is based on entirely documentary evidence. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The statement of Dr. Rajesh Gupta that he has never visited the Hospital and all patient documents allegedly contained his forged signatures cannot be accepted as the gospel truth so as to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. A reply dated 22.07.2026 by way of an affidavit of Sumit Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barwala, Hisar has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. He contends that five patients were shown to JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -5- have been admitted in the Hospital but only two were actually admitted therein. One Dr. Rajesh Gupta is shown to have treated the patients. However, his statement has been recorded during the course of the investigation and it has been found that he was continously absent from duty at Vidhata Nursing Home between 07.03.2026 to 31.03.2026. Surprisingly, the medical records relating to the delivery of Sonia W/o Sandeep bear his signatures which are obviously fabricated. It has been found from the Ayushman Portal that the treatment expenses amounting to Rs.48,000/- in respect of Sonia W/o Sandeep have been claimed by Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana and the corresponding documents have been submitted to the Government Hospital, Hisar whereas, as per the statement of Sandeep, his son (newly born baby) was discharged from the Hospital on 07.03.2026 and not 15.03.2026. Similarly, the statement of Dr. Apoorva Aggarwal has also been recorded wherein she has admitted some of her signatures on the medical records of Ramdei W/o Satbir, Mukeshi W/o Deepak and Sadanand S/o Ran Singh. He contends that the petitioner being the owner and proprietor of Vidhata Nursing Home created fake bills of patients who were not found admitted for treatment in the Hospital at the relevant time and the said bills of the patients have been used to claim amounts through the Ayushman Portal. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -6- petitioner is certainly required. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -7- anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. 7. As per the investigation conducted so far, only Mukeshi W/o Deepak and Ramdei W/o Satbir were found to be admitted at the Hospital and treatment is shown to have been provided by Dr. Apoorva Aggarwal. Sadanand is shown to have been discharged on 23.03.2026. However, as per the statement of Dr. Apoorva Aggarwal, she signed JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -8- Sadanand’s file only upto 20.03.2026 after which her signatures appearing on his file have been denied by her which only goes to show that the same have been fabricated to show that Sadanand continued to remain admitted for three more days. The new born child of Brijesh Rani W/o Pardeep and Vikash have been shown to have been discharged on 23.03.2026 are shown to have been provided treatment by Dr. Rajesh Gupta. The statement of Dr. Rajesh Gupta has been recorded wherein he has categorically denied that he has signed any document. On the contrary, it has been found that Rajesh Gupta had not visited Vidhata Nursing Home between 07.03.2026 and 31.03.2026. Therefore, apparently, the medical records of these new born children have been fabricated to show hospitalization for more days then the actual period of hospitalization so that the Hospital obtain undue benefits of the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. The FIR itself reveals the discrepancy in the treatment, date of admission and date of discharge of Sonia W/o Sandeep who is the mother of a new born child. Sandeep has disclosed that his wife delivered a child on 03.03.2026 and was discharged on 07.03.2026. However, she has been shown to have been discharged later and Rs.48,000/- has been approved for reimbursement from the Ayushman Bharat Scheme on the basis of forged signatures of Sandeep found on the Ayushman file. 8. The State has filed its reply. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:- JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -9- 6. That during investigation place of occurrence was inspected, a site plan (Naksha Nazri) was prepared, and the statements of witnesses were recorded. During the investigation, one sealed parcel containing the DVR, marked AS/3, duly sealed along with the sample seal, was deposited with the Malkhana Moharrir (MM) of the Police Station. During Investigation on 31.03.2026, ASI Falel Singh recorded that Sanjay Kumar, Record Keeper, Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana Mandi, produced the files relating to the following patients whose admissions were reflected in the Ayushman online portal on 22.03.2026: Ramdei wife of Satbir, resident of Bithmara; Sadanand son of Ran Singh, resident of Danoda Khurd; Mukeshi wife of Deepak (address unknown), Mobile No. 9728721560; Baby of Brijesh Rani wife of Pradeep Kumar, resident of Chamarkheda; and Baby of Vikash, resident of Uklana Mandi. Upon examination of the files, the following facts were found: Ramdei: As per CR No. 3208 dated 18.03.2026, she was admitted to Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana Mandi for treatment and was discharged on 22.03.2026 at 7:10 PM. The treatment was shown to have been provided by Dr. Apoorva Agrawal. Sadanand: As per CR No. 3203, he was admitted on 16.03.2026 at 10:30 PM and discharged on 23.03.2026 at 10:20 AM. The treatment was shown to have been provided by Dr. Apoorva Agrawal. Mukeshi Devi wife of Deepak: As per CR No. 3210, she was admitted for treatment on 20.03.2026 at 12:20 PM and was found to have left the hospital against medical advice (LAMA) on 23.03.2026 at 8:35 AM. The treatment was shown to have been provided by Dr. Apoorva JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -10- Agrawal. Baby of Brijesh Rani wife of Pradeep: As per CR No. 3209, the baby was admitted on 18.03.2026 at 10:20 AM and discharged on 23.03.2026 at 1:30 PM. The treatment was shown to have been provided by Dr. Rajesh Gupta. Baby of Vikash: As per CR No. 3206, the baby was admitted on 17.03.2026 at 10:20 AM and discharged on 23.03.2026 at 11:00 AM. The treatment was shown to have been provided by Dr. Rajesh Gupta. **** **** **** 9. That on verification, the Nursing Home Registration Number was found to be PSA/REG/HSR/0340931 dated 30.10.2024, and the proprietor was found to be Vijender Tak, son of Om Prakash, resident of Ward No.1, Uklana Mandi. The Ayushman Registration Number of Vidhata Nursing Home was found to be HOSP6P206845-HSR. On examination of the duty roster, it was found that Dr. Rajesh Gupta was shown to have remained continously absent from duty at Vidhata Nursing Home from 07.03.2026 to 31.03.2026. However, the medical records relating to the delivery of Sonia wife of Sandeep, resident of Bithmara, bore the signatures of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta. **** **** **** 11. That during investigation on 27.05.2026, the victims Sandeep and Sonia wife of Sandeep, residents of Bithmara, joined the investigation and their statements were recorded. During investigation on 05.06.2026, DIM Jony Singh, Civil Hospital, Hisar, produced 7 certified pages relating to the benefits claimed by Vidhata Nursing Home under the Ayushman Scheme before SI Jitender Singh. The same were taken into police possession through a production-cum-seizure memo. Copies of the documents JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -11- available on the Ayushman Portal relating to Mukeshi, Brijesh Rani, Ramdei, Vikash, Sadanand and Sonia were produced. It was further found from the Ayushman Portal that treatment expenses amounting to Rs.48,000/- in respect of Sonia, wife of Sandeep, had been claimed by Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana, and the corresponding documents had been submitted to the Government Hospital, Hisar, whereas as per statement of Sandeep his son (newly born baby) was discharged from hospital on 07.03.2026 not on 15.03.2026. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Copy of statement of witness Sandeep is appended herewith as Annexure R-1. 12. That during investigation on 10.06.2026, Dr. Rajesh Gupta joined the investigation. He was questioned regarding the seal and signatures appearing on the Admission Notes and Admission Files of: Baby of Sonia (UHID No.878), Baby of Brijesh Rani wife of Pradeep (UHID No. 701), and Baby of Vikash (UHID No. 898). Dr. Rajesh Gupta stated that he had never visited Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana, and that the seal and signatures appearing on the admission notes and admission documents were not his. His separate statement was recorded. Copy of statement of Dr. Rajesh Gupta is appended herewith as Annexure R-2. 13. That during investigation on 18.06.2026, Dr. Apoorva Agrawal joined the investigation and was questioned regarding the seals and signatures appearing on the Admission Notes and Admission Files of: Ramdei wife of Satbir (UHID No. 700), Mukeshi wife of Deepak (UHID No. 702), and Sadanand son of Ran Singh (UHID No. 695). Dr. Apoorva stated that the signatures appearing in Ramdei's file dated 21.03.2026 were her own signatures, JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34960-2026 -12- whereas the signatures on all other dates were not hers. She denied that the signatures appearing in Mukeshi's file were hers. She further stated that the signatures appearing in Sadanand's file dated 20.03.2026 had been made by her personally. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Copy of statement of witness namely Dr. Apoorva is appended herewith as Annexure R-3.” 9. The petitioner is the owner and proprietor of Vidhata Nursing Home, Uklana. He has created fake bills of patients who have not been found to be admitted for treatment in the Hospital at the relevant period of time and the said bills of the patients were to be used to claim amounts through the Ayushman Portal. Prima facie, the offence stands established against the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary so as to ascertain other cases where the petitioner has adopted a similar modus operandi to claim undue benefits under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. 10. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. 11. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made herein. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 28.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.29 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document