The Delhi High Court has held that “Pre-trial detention cannot be employed as a means of compelling an accused to produce documents which he is alleged to have made away with”, granting regular bail to former DGHS Director General Dr Vatsala Aggarwal and former CPA Head of Office Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga in the ₹842 crore DGHS procurement case.
New Delhi: Two senior government doctors arrested in the alleged ₹842 crore medical procurement case of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Delhi, are out on regular bail after the Delhi High Court held on November 6 that the investigation was substantially complete and that the case rests largely on documents already seized [Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
By a common order, Justice Sachin Datta allowed the bail applications of Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga, the then Head of Office of the Central Procurement Agency (CPA), and Dr Vatsala Aggarwal, the then Director General of DGHS.
Custody is not a tool for recovery
Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Manish Sisodia v. ED and P. Chidambaram v. ED, the Court said that “necessity” of continued detention is the yardstick, and that the gravity of the accusation cannot by itself justify refusal of bail. It distinguished Jagan Mohan Reddy and Nimmagadda Prasad, relied on by the ACB, where bail was declined to let the investigation be completed, noting that here the charge-sheet has been filed and cognisance taken.
The missing tender files were, in the Court’s words, the most serious circumstance against the applicants. It held:
“Pre-trial detention cannot be employed as a means of compelling an accused to produce documents which he is alleged to have made away with.”
The files, the Court noted, were already untraced before either applicant was arrested, eight premises had been searched, and their absence had not stopped the State from filing a detailed charge-sheet. As for the phones, a handset said to have been lost before arrest “cannot be recovered by keeping its owner in custody”, the Court said, adding that whether the explanation of loss is true is a matter for trial.
No money trail, no flight risk
No money has been traced to either applicant, the Court recorded, and the ₹842 crore figure represents payments to the five firms. The State’s own status report says the price difference in the X-ray procurement “cannot be treated as a conclusively established financial loss” without reconciling taxes, specifications and records. On flight risk, it held:
“Since both the applicants are doctors, with permanent residences in Delhi and no criminal antecedents, there is nothing on record to suggest that either applicant is a flight risk.”
In Dr Aggarwal‘s case, the Court took note of the jail medical report and her repeated admissions to the jail’s Medical Inspection Room, and said the policy behind the proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS, covering a person who is a woman or sick or infirm, weighed in her favour.
The FIR and the allegations
The case arises from FIR No. 07/2026 dated June 2, 2026, registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), GNCTD, on a complaint by the Deputy Director (Vigilance). It invokes Sections 7A, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2), 316(5), 318(4) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and is now pending as CC No. 67/2026 before the Special Judge (PC Act) at Rouse Avenue Court.
The prosecution alleges cartelisation in the CPA’s procurement of medicines, surgical items, equipment and linen, with tenders carrying restrictive and tailor-made specifications to favour firms linked to co-accused Rajeev Kumar, and payments of about ₹842 crore to five firms. These remain allegations; the charges are yet to be framed and the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Dr Ranga was arrested on June 18, 2026 and Dr Aggarwal on June 27, 2026. The charge-sheet was filed on September 16 against five accused, citing 84 witnesses and running to about 12,000 pages. The Special Judge refused them bail on October 17 and, on October 27, allowed further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS.
What each side argued
The applicants pointed to the State’s own reply before the trial court, which recorded that no direct transfer had been shown into Dr Ranga‘s personal account, and argued that no custodial interrogation had been sought since August 16 and that the trial would take long. Dr Aggarwal added that she was not named in the FIR, that custody of the tender files never vested in her, that no money trail led to her, and that, as a woman of about 61 with serious ailments, she was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS.
Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhandari, Special Counsel for the ACB, opposed bail, calling it a large-scale economic offence against public funds. He alleged that the tender files went missing on May 18, 2026, at the first visit of the Vigilance team, that neither applicant produced the mobile phone used during the relevant period, and that Dr Ranga had not given the password of his seized phone. He argued that the further investigation was at a crucial stage and relied on YS Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan.
Conditions of release
The applicants were released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety of like amount. They must not leave the NCR or the country without the trial court’s permission and must surrender their passports; must not enter CPA or DGHS premises without permission; must not contact any prosecution witness or, in connection with the case, any CPA or DGHS official; must join the investigation, including the further investigation, when called by written notice; and must report to the SHO on the first Monday of every month. The State is free to seek cancellation if any condition is breached.
The Court made clear that its observations are only for deciding the bail applications and are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Why the order matters
The order reaffirms that even in large economic-offence cases, bail turns on whether custody is actually needed, not on the size of the alleged loss. Once the charge-sheet is filed, cognisance is taken and the evidence is mainly documentary and already seized, the risk of tampering is largely met by conditions rather than continued detention.
It also sets a clear limit on using custody as a lever: the State’s grievance over missing files or lost phones is a matter for trial, and incarceration cannot be used to compel an accused to produce what he is alleged to have destroyed. The ruling also shows how the Section 480(1) BNSS proviso for women and the sick informs the High Court’s discretion, even though the restriction itself does not bind it.
Case Title: Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi); Dr Vatsala Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 4561/2026 and BAIL APPLN. 4679/2026]
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur with advocates Keshav Sehgal, Shivam Gaur, Dharam Singh, Aryan Kumar and Rashi Singh for Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga; Senior Advocate Manu Sharma with advocates Brijesh Yadav, Nikita, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Yogyank Mishra, Manoviraj Singh and Kailash Kumar for Dr Vatsala Aggarwal; Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhandari with advocates Arjit Sharma and Amit Goswami for the ACB; APPs Utkarsh and Priyanka Dalal for the State
