# Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 299 of 2022
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-rajeev-gupta-m-d-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47720
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988-Sections 109 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(e)-Applicant's
wife-government
Medical
practitioner-Sr.D.M.O.-
in
possession
of
disproportionate
assets-
Applicant-husbandabetted
the
possession
of
assets
disproportionate - F.I.R.-no tenable explanation
for the recovered amount.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. Vs. State of U.P.
315
to furnish security to secure the interest of
the respondent.

13. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the impugned order is hereby
set aside, but with direction to the appellant
to make payment of Rs. 3,16,363/-, if not
already made (as undertaken by counsel for
the appellant) and furnish security (other
than cash or bank guarantee) in a sum of
Rs. 10 lakhs, before the court below, within
four weeks from today.

14. It is left open to the respondent to
initiate arbitral proceedings as per the
mandate of Section 9(2) of the Act.

15. In the result, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed.

16. The Registrar General shall call
for explanation from the Presiding Officer,
in relation to the manner in which the case
has been decided and place it before the
concerned
Administrative
Judge
for
consideration.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 315
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
299 of 2022

Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Purnendu Chakaravarty

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh
Civil Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988-Sections 109 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(e)-Applicant's
wife-government
Medical
practitioner-Sr.D.M.O.-
in
possession
of
disproportionate
assets-
Applicant-husbandabetted
the
possession
of
assets
disproportionate - F.I.R.-no tenable explanation
for the recovered amount.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1

2. P.S. Kirupanandhan Vs St., Cri. A. No. 381 of
2017 and Cri MP No. 8256 of 2017
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Dharmendra
Pratap
Singh,
Advocate
holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Criminal Case No.690 of 2021,
Crime
No.
RC0062019A0008,
under
Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act,
1988 and Section 109 IPC, Police Station
CBI/ACB, District Lucknow, with a prayer
to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

Brief Facts:-

3. The present case has been
registered on the basis of a written
complaint
by
Shri
Anmol
Sachan,
PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow, dated 23/05/2019
against Dr. Sunita Gupta, the then Sr.
D.M.O.,
Northern
Railway
(N.R.),
Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow
and her husband Dr. Rajeev Gupta,
Professor, KGMU, Lucknow, U/s 109 IPC
& Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act,
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1988. It is alleged in the complaint that Dr.
Sunita Gupta, the then Sr. D.M.O.,
Northern Railways, Divisional Hospital,
Charbagh, Lucknow was in possession of
disproportionate assets to her known
sources of income to the tune of Rs
1,80,96,585.33
during
the
period
01/01/2009 to 12/07/2016, which she can
not satisfactorily account for. Dr. Rajeev
Gupta husband of Dr. Sunita Gupta also
abetted
the
possession
of
assets
disproportionate to known sources of
income by Dr. Sunita Gupta.

4. The investigation revealed that Dr.
Sunita Gupta was posted as Sr. D.M.O.,
N.R., Division Hospital, Lucknow up to
October, 2015. She was transferred to
Modern Coach Factory, Rae Bareli in same
capacity wherein she joined on 16/11/2015
in
compliance
of
Order
No.
940E/1A/Medical
Officer,
dated
05/11/2015, DRM, Lucknow. Since then
she is serving in MCF, Rae Bareli and
staying in the Guest House of MCF, Rae
Bareli.
Occasionally,
she
comes
to
Lucknow.
Dr.
Sunita
Gupta
retained
Government Accommodation allotted to
her at Lucknow, with due permission from
competent authority. While Dr. Sunita
Gupta resided in Rae Bareli, her husband
Dr. Rajeev Gupta resided in her official
residence at Type IV-24, Church Road,
Railway Colony Lucknow.

5.

During
investigation
of
RC/006/2016/A/002,
by
Shri
Anmol
Sachan, searches were conducted by Sh
Sandeep
Pandey.
PI/CBI/ACB/Lko
in
presence of the CBI Team & independent
witnesses at official residential premises of
Dr. Sunita Gupta at IV-24, Church Road,
Railway Colony, near Fatehli Chauraha,
Charbagh, Lucknow on 12/07/2016. At the
time of searches. Dr. Sunita Gupta was
posted at Rae Bareli. Her husband Dr.
Rajeev Gupta was present in the official
residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta at Lucknow.

6. During the course of house search,
a Search List was prepared vide which total
six items including documents and cash
was seized. Two Steel Almirah were kept in
the Drawing Room which were opened
with the keys provided by Dr. Rajeev
Gupta.
The Almirah
contained
huge
currency notes. Total Rs 1,59,00,000/ were
found in the Almirah. Enquiry was made
from Dr. Rajeev Gupta about the source of
money. He took the plea that the said cash
has been earned by him through private
practice. The plea taken by Dr. Rajeev
Gupta was not found satisfactory. Hence,
the said amount was seized. In addition to
Rs 1,59,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 70,700/-
was also found in the Steel Almirah, which
was left for their day to day expenditure.
During
searches
various
documents
pertaining to investments by Dr. Sunita
Gupta and Dr. Rajeev Gupta were found
and
seized
vide
Search
List,
dated
12/07/2016 by Sh Sandeep Pandey, the then
PI/CBI/ACB/Lko i.e. "List of Insurance
Policies & FDs, "List of NSC/KVP", "List
of SB A/c detail and PPF A/c, Currency
Notes Rs 1.59,00,000/ seized vide "Details
of Currency Notes". In the said house of the
wife of the applicant, the house hold
items/articles a separate Inventory Memo
was prepared, annexed with the search list.
In the Inventory Memo details i.e. date,
time,
cost
of
requisition,
mode
of
acquisition and details of items/articles was
noted. During the house search of Dr.
Sunita Gupta, a locker key of Locker No
203C, Central Bank of India, Alambagh
Branch, Lucknow was seized and the said
locker was operated by Sh Atul Dikshit,
PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow, in the presence of
Dr.
Sunita
Gupta
and
independent
10 All. Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. Vs. State of U.P.
317
witnesses and vide "Bank Locker Operation
Cum Seizure Memo", dated 12/07/2019
amount of Rs. 9,43,000/- was seized from
the said locker. The I.O. of the present case
seized relevant documents. recovered cash
amount from Shri Anmol Sachan vide
Handing Over/Taking Over taking Memo
dated 10/06/2019.

7. The pay details of Dr. Sunita Gupta
and Dr. Rajeev Gupta, for the check period
were collected and relevant witnesses
examined to prove their income Further, Sh
Sandeep Pandey, PI/CBI/ACB/Lko and his
CBI team including independent witnesses
to the search conducted on the official
residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta were
examined and they proved the Search List
along
with
Inventory
Memo
dated
12/07/2016. Dr. Rajeev Gupta was present
during the searches and was provided a
copy of Search List dated 12/07/2016. They
corroborated the seizure of Rs 1.59 crore
from the official residential premises of Dr.
Sunita Gupta on 12/07/2016 along with
other seized documents.

8. During investigation, the I.O.
collected the records from various banks
pertaining to accounts maintained by Dr.
Sunita Gupta & Dr. Rajeev Gupta and
examined
relevant
witnesses
for
ascertaining balance at the start of the
check period and at the end of the check
period. The I.O. also calculated the interest
received in the account and balance in the
account at the end of check period.

9. The I.O. collected the records from
School, Colleges to prove the expenditures
incurred by Dr. Rajeev Gupta & Dr. Sunita
Gupta and recorded the statements of the
relevant witnesses. The I.O. collected the
records from Post Offices to give the due
benefit to accused regarding their income
during the check period. The I.O. also
collected the records from Post Offices to
prove investments in the name of Dr.
Rajeev Gupta & Dr. Sunita Gupta during
the
check
period
and
recorded
the
statement of relevant witnesses.

10. On 12/07/2019, the CBI team in
presence of independent witnesses had
found & seized currency notes amounting
Rs 1.59 crore from official residence of Dr.
Sunita Gupta. At the time of searches, Dr.
Sunita Gupta was posted at Rae Bareli and
not present in the house. The currency
notes were kept in different shelves of
almirah. A large number of envelopes of
different shape, size & colour were found
in the almirah. The envelopes were opened
& inside the envelopes currency notes of
different denominations were found tied
with rubber bands. On the envelopes some
details regarding cash in the envelope was
mentioned. All the currency notes were
taken out from a large number of different
envelopes. Denomination wise the currency
notes were segregated, counted with the
help of Currency Note Counting Machine.
Thereafter, denomination wise bundles
were made & seized. The envelopes/paper
slips, rubber band were not seized, as the
same were not required. Dr. Rajeev Gupta
had claimed that every envelope (inside
which the currency notes were wrapped
with rubber band) had the paper slip
containing details of the patient name along
with the amount received by the individual
patient and that the CBI team took the cash
from the envelopes and taken the envelopes
with slip and left rubber bands. However,
the CBI team stated that only Rs. 1.59 crore
cash was seized and no such slip or
envelope was taken/seized by them. Hence,
accused Dr. Rajeev Gupta was having all
the opportunity to keep the said envelops,
paper slips with himself in safe custody so
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he might produce the same as
documentary evidence in his defence, as he
has claimed that the said envelope/paper
slip were having details of patients and
amounts received by him through private
practice.
This
shows
that
the
said
envelopes/paper slips were not having any
information/details of patients/amount as
claimed by Dr. Rajeev Gupta.

11. Dr. Sunita Gupta has taken the plea that
the amount of Rs. 1.59 crore seized in the
case has no relation with her and stated that
as the amount was seized from the almirah
of Dr. Rajeev Gupta, he will inform the
source. Applicant/Dr. Rajeev Gupta had
claimed during the searches that the
recovered amount of Rs. 1.59 crore from
the official residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta
belonged to him, earned by him through
private practice. He was issued Order (U/s
91 Cr.PC.) to produce documents/source
showing income pertaining to recovery of
cash amount of Rs. 1.59 crore on
12/07/2016.

12. In response to notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C.,
applicant/Dr. Rajeev Gupta stated that after
marriage in 1993, he himself & his wife Dr.
Sunita Gupta started a clinic at their residence
at Mahanagar ("Mamta Mother & Child Care
Center"). On 24/03/2000, they shifted to the
Railway Quarter allotted to his wife and he
was doing practice from there. Patients were
coming to him for treatment of Cancer,
consultancy in emergency and he charged
regular fees from the patients. He is paid by
various Doctors, owners of Nursing Home &
patients for his professional advice, wherein
he treated cancer patients after office hours.
He named such Doctors and Nursing Homes.
The amount received from such practice
always became a handsome amount every
month. He also visited some patients for their
treatment.
He
attended
Hepatitis
B
Immunization & Cancer Awareness Program
in Lucknow in 2005 along with Dr. Uttam
Tiwari, who used to run NGO Research
India. He gave consultancy to patients and
earned money. He used to get large number
of patients through this NGO for treatment of
Cancer disease. Dr. Rajeev Gupta further
named various Doctors and Hospital owners
who
sent
him
Cancer
patients
for
consultation, prescription of medicine/ test.
chemotherapy, radiation etc. and requested
for their examination.

13. The statements of the following
witnesses were taken under Section 161
Cr.P.C. by the I.O.:-

(a) Dr. Rakesh Mishra, BSc, MBBS,
MD.
(Physician),
"Urmila
Hospital",
Priyadarshani Colony, Sitapur Road, (In
front of Vidhyanchal Mandir Railway
Crossing), Lucknow.

(b) Dr. Rajesh Yadav, M.B.B.S., M.D.,
Managing Director Autar Hospital Diabetic
& Trauma Centre, adjacent Diamond
Palace & Petrol Pump. Talkatora Road,
Lucknow.

(c) Dr. Rukhsana Khatoon, Managing
Director "Rukhsana Medical & Trauma
Centre, 20 Deen Dayal Road, Ashaarfabad,
Lucknow.

(d) Dr. Ishtiyaq Ahmed, BUMS,
Managing Director "Star Hospital", Hardoi
Road,
Tahseenganj,
P.S
Thakurganj.
Lucknow.

(e) Dr. Maroof Ahmed, R/o 498/5KA,
Nawab ganj, Barabanki, U.P.

(f) Dr. Neeraj Tandon, Prop. "Day
Care Chemo Therapy Center" from 25 to
27 Vasundhara Complex, Sector 16, Behind
Easy Day, Near Petrol Pump, Lucknow.

14. The aforesaid witnesses have
stated that Dr. Rajeev Gupta attended
patients in their hospital, after office hours,
10 All. Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. Vs. State of U.P.
319
gave
consultation,
prescriptions
for
medicines/tests
&
also
conducted
Chemotherapy of the patients. If any
patients treated by Dr. Rajeev Gupta
needed Radiation, he helped in getting
Radiotherapy treatment at KGMC for
which patient made payments to KGMC
Hospital. Dr. Rajeev Gupta received
payments from patients for their treatment,
through the hospital staff. They furnished
the estimated payments made to Dr. Rajeev
Gupta towards treatment of cancer patients
done by him. Dr. Uttam Tiwari, who used
to run NGO Research India could not be
examined as he has already expired around
2015. Further Dr. Ranjeet Singh, MBBS,
MS., S/o S. P. Singh, Managing Director
"Amrit Hospital". Super Specialty Hospital
&
Trauma
Center,
Gandhi
Colony,
Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and
Dr. Mahender Pal, S/o Sh Pritam Ram, Ex
MLA, R/o Vill Ami, PO Gahluya, PS
Jahanbad, Pilibhit, U.P. on examination
stated that they sent a large number of
patients to Dr. Rajeev Gupta for their
treatment of cancer and Dr. Rajeev Gupta
took his consultation/treatment charges on
his own. Dr. Pankaj Agrawal, M.S.,
FIAGES, Managing Director "Rajchandra
Hospital. 554, Ga/256 Damodar Nagar, VIP
Road, Alambagh, Lucknow also stated that
Dr. Rajeev Gupta treated few cancer
patients at his hospital. The above said
Doctors were directed to furnish the
documentary evidence pertaining to details
of
the
patients
treated
in
their
hospitals/clinic/on their reference by Dr.
Rajeev Gupta. However, they could not
furnish any documentary evidence in this
regard to prove the treatment of the cancer
patients by Dr. Rajeev Gupta, they
expressed their inability to furnish the
records of patient treatment sought for the
period 2010-2016. The same being very old
one and due to lack of storage area and
Medical Council of India guidelines they
are not required to maintain records of the
period more than 3 years and as such the
same is burnt/destroyed.

15. The applicant or any other person
(Doctors/Hospital
Owners)
summoned/examined
during
the
investigation could not produce any valid
documentary evidence in support of their
statement
or
explanation
offered
by
applicant that the total amount of Rs. 1.59
crore seized from the official residence of
Dr. Sunita Gupta on 12/07/2016 was
actually earned by applicant by indulging
in private practice, after office hours.

16. In respect of the applicant, the
Sanction for Prosecution, has been accorded
by the competent authority and the same has
been
received
vide
Letter
No.
KGMU/C/79/2021, dated 30/06/2021, issued
by Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Puri. Vice Chancellor,
King George Medical University, U.P.,
Lucknow for launching prosecution U/s 109
IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988.

Rival Contentions:-

17. Learned counsel for the applicant
has stated that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the matter. The money
recovered from his possession is his genuine
and hard earned money. Learned counsel for
the applicant has further placed reliance on
the statement of various doctors which have
been examined by the Investigating Officer
during investigation, who have categorically
stated that the applicant used to treat various
cancer patients in private and the money is a
result of the said private practice.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further stated that the applicant is the
Head of Department (Radio Therapy) in
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
K.G.M.U., Lucknow. In case, the applicant
is released on anticipatory bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant
is ready to cooperate in trial.

19. Per contra, Sri Dharmendra Pratap
Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the
anticipatory bail application on the ground
that the accused has not appeared in court
on summons. The present application has
been filed after the bailable warrants have
been issued against the applicant. The
sanction for prosecution has already been
received and the charge-sheet has been
filed in court.

20. Learned counsel for the CBI has
further stated that the applicant is a radio
therapist and in the said field of radio
therapy, no private practice is ever seen.
The said field is a specialized field and is
undertaken in large Institutions and the set
up required for practicing in radio therapy
goes to the tune of multi crores.

Conclusion:-

21. Learned counsel for the applicant
has failed to accord any tenable explanation
for the recovered amount. He has further
argued that the applicant is not authorized
to take private practice as he is employed in
a Government institution.

22. The Apex Court in para 92.3 and
92.4 of Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported
in (2020) 5 SCC 1 has observed as under:-

"92.3. .....................While considering
an application (for grant of anticipatory
bail) the court has to consider the nature of
the offence, the role of the person, the
likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation, or tampering with evidence
(including
intimidating
witnesses),
likelihood of fleeing justice (such as
leaving the country), etc. The courts would
be justified - and ought to impose
conditions spelt out in Section 437(3), Cr.
PC [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The need
to impose other restrictive conditions,
would have to be judged on a case-by-case
basis, and depending upon the materials
produced by the State or the investigating
agency. Such special or other restrictive
conditions may be imposed if the case or
cases warrant, but should not be imposed
in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise,
conditions which limit the grant of
anticipatory bail may be granted, if they
are required in the facts of any case or
cases; however, such limiting conditions
may not be invariably imposed.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally
guided by considerations such as the nature
and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of
the case, while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it.
Whether to grant or not is a matter of
discretion; equally whether and if so, what
kind of special conditions are to be imposed
(or not imposed) are dependent on facts of
the case, and subject to the discretion of the
court."

 23.

In
the
case
of
P.S.
Kirupanandhan Vs State, Cri. A. No. 381
of 2017 and Cri MP No. 8256 of 2017, the
Hon'ble Madras High Court has rejected
the
submissions
made
by
the
accused/applicant and decided that in DA
cases, the explanation offered by the
accused must be supported with valid
documentary
evidences.
Hence,
the
explanation/argument of the accused/other
person cited in defence is not tenable/valid
10 All. Siddh Narain Sharma Vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Lko & Ors.
321
and lawful. The arguments tendered on
behalf of the applicant are not based on
concrete facts but are vague and general.
The case is not fit for the anticipatory bail.

24.

The
medical
practitioner
administer an oath at the time of
convocation as provided by Indian Medical
Association which is an extension of
Hippocratic oath taken the world over. The
oath is not merely a formality. It has to be
observed and followed in letter and spirit. It
is on these lines that the apex medical
education
regulator,
National
Medical
Commission
has
suggested
that
the
Hippocratic oath be replaced by 'CHARAK
SHAPATH'
during
the
convocation
ceremony
for
graduates
in
medical
services. The medical and legal fields are
more a service than a profession especially
the stream of oncology which deals with
life and death.

25. Corruption is a termite in every
system. Once it enters the system, it goes
on increasing. Today, it is rampant and has
become a routine. Corruption is root cause
of all the problems, such as poverty,
unemployment,
illiteracy,
pollution,
external
threats,
underdevelopment,
inequality, social unrest. The menace has to
be put to account. The offence is against the
society. The Court has to balance the
fundamental rights of the accused to the
legitimate concerns of the society at large
vis-a-vis the investigating agency.

26. The task of the Court is manifold.
Firstly, it has to ensure that there is no
unwarranted misuse or abuse of process to
encroach upon life and liberty of the
applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Secondly, it has to seen
that the Rule of law is followed and the
administration of justice is not hampered,
the guilty is brought to book.

27. In view of the above, the present
anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 321
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Appl. U/s 438 Cr.P.C.
No. 1105 of 2022

Siddh Narain Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Lko & Ors. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Kuldeep Srivastava, Shiv P. Shukla

Civil
Law
-
Prevention
of
Money
Laundering Act, 2002- Section 3/4-FIR
lodged-no
chargesheet
against
Applicantnothing
incriminating
-even
then
E.D.
summoned the present Applicant couple of
times for recording St.ment and producing
evidence-no independent investigation by E.D.-
investigation by C.B.I. reiterated by the E.D.-
Applicant co-operated with the investigation
and not flouted the process.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs
V.C. Mohan, Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8441 of 2021)

2. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors., in its judgment dated 27.07.2022 passed in