BBP Bed Allotment Scam : Bengaluru Court Grants Bail To Two Accused; Says No Prima Facie Evidence Against Them

Additional Sessions Judge B Venkatesha granted bail to D Rehan Shahed who was working in the Covid-19 war room as a Covid doctor and Shashikumar who was working as a data entry operator. The accused were arrested by the Jayanagar police on May 5, under sections 53 of the Disaster Management Act and section 406, 409, 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been in judicial custody since then.

BJP Bengaluru South MP Tejasvi Surya had claimed that bribes were being taken to allocate Covid beds. He also stated that a nexus of BBMP officers, Arogya Mitras and certain private agents is behind this scam. This had led to an artificial shortage of beds in the city.

The petitioners argued that they have not indulged in the commission of any acts alleged against them. Moreover, they are merely scapegoats of the allegations made by the local Member of Parliament. Further, it was submitted that they have not cheated anybody. Both the accused contended that they have no power or authority to take independent decisions either in the matter of functioning of the war room or in the matter of allotment of beds. They have been falsely implicated due to political and extraneous reasons.

The prosecution opposed the applications by stating that these bail applications are not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is prima-facie evidence to believe that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Moreover, investigation is in progress and if they are released on bail they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and likely to abscond.

The court in its order noted that "In the FIR or in the complaint, names of the petitioners are not shown as accused. Whereas in the remand application the petitioners are shown as A1 and A2."

The court went through their appointment order issued by the Chief Medical Officer, BBMP which discloses that A1 (Doctor) was appointed as candidate on contract basis for a period of six months to prevent spreading of covid-19 pandemic. Condition no 5 discloses that the petitioners have no right to sign or to approve on the financial files. A2 is a data entry operator who enters data as per say of superior officers.

Following which the court observed "On perusal of material placed before the court it appears that the complaint was lodged assuming that the war room staff may be taking money while allotting beds to needy patients by way of blocking beds in the name of covid patients who are in home isolation. But no such evidence is placed on record from whom the petitioners have received money while allotting beds or blocking beds as alleged."

It added "The petitioners are not the main persons who have full entrustment over the war room. They are working under the control of a nodal officer. No specific complaint from any citizen against the petitioners that they received money or demanded for payment of money to allot bed for treatment. Therefore, no ground to believe that there exists a prima-facie case against the petitioner."

The court also opined that "Apex court in many cases has held that the gravity of offence alone cannot be a ground to refuse bail. It is a well settled position of law that availability of the accused to face trial also is to be taken into consideration while granting or refusing bail. The petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru city. They may not flee away from justice if they are released on bail." It thus held "Looking at the facts of this case no purpose would be survived if the petitioners are continued in judicial custody for a long time during this pandemic period."

The court directed the accused to be released on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with two sureties of like sum. The court directed them not to threaten prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. Appear before the court on every date of hearing without fail, except in extraordinary circumstances. Further, not indulge in commission of offences of similar nature. Present themselves before the Investigating officer once in 15 days.

Accused D Rehan Shaheed was represented by Muzaffar Ahmed & Associates while accused Shashikumar was represented by Advocate Prateek Chandramouli.