Gujarat HC denies bail to Khyati chairman in PMJAY deaths case

The Gujarat High Court has refused bail to the chairman of Khyati Hospital in the Ahmedabad case over allegedly unnecessary angioplasties performed on Ayushman Bharat PMJAY beneficiaries, two of whom died. A refusal of bail is not a finding of guilt, and the matter remains at trial.

What the Record Shows

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the regular bail application of Kartik Jashubhai Patel, chairman of Khyati Hospital, Ahmedabad, by order dated 3 September 2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14781 of 2025, per the order of the court. Patel is recorded in the order as holding 51 per cent of the shares in the hospital.

The prosecution arises from FIR No. 11191020240478 of 2024, registered at Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad on 10 November 2024. According to the High Court's order, the FIR followed the deaths of two patients after angioplasty procedures at the hospital, and the investigation was taken up by the Detection of Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City Police. A chargesheet has been filed, and the bail application the court decided was moved after that stage.

The charges invoked, per the record, are under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the FIR having been registered after that code came into force. The order lists sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 318 and 61, provisions that cover culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. In dismissing the bail plea, the court recorded the material the prosecution had placed before it; a refusal of bail is a decision on custody pending trial, not a finding on the merits, and the chargesheet's contents are allegations to be proved.

How It Worked

The prosecution's case, as the High Court records it, is that patients were drawn in through a medical camp and then advised into procedures they did not need. The order states that a camp was held at Village Borisana, that 89 villagers attended, that 19 were referred for hospital procedures and that seven underwent angioplasty. Two of those patients died after the procedure.

Per the court's account of the allegations, patients with trivial complaints "were wrongfully advised to undergo cardiogram and angiography", and, despite expressing refusal, were persuaded to undergo angioplasty on warnings about the risk to their lives. The court records that an expert review by the U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology found multiple of the procedures were "not required". These are the prosecution's assertions as noted in a bail order; whether the clinical decisions amounted to an offence is precisely the question the trial must decide, and nothing here establishes it.

On the money, the order notes a dispute the trial will have to resolve: the prosecution claimed that the PMJAY scheme accounted for about 90 per cent of the hospital's revenue, while a forensic audit put the figure at about 26 per cent. The mechanism the prosecution alleges is that PMJAY cardholders were routed from the camp into the hospital and billed to the Central scheme for the procedures. The procedural chain shown by the record runs from the FIR of 10 November 2024, through the arrests and the chargesheet, to the bail application dismissed on 3 September 2025, with the chairman recorded as having been arrested after a period during which he was said to be absconding. No response on his behalf is reproduced beyond the bail plea itself, which the court dismissed.

Who Lost Money

The people most directly affected were the seven PMJAY beneficiaries who underwent angioplasty at the camp's referral, two of whom died after the procedure. The High Court order does not identify them, and this report does not; the human cost the case turns on is measured in those two deaths rather than in a rupee figure.

The financial loss alleged falls on the public health scheme and its insurer. Ayushman Bharat PMJAY reimburses empanelled hospitals for treating cardholders, so a claim for a medically unnecessary procedure is, on the prosecution's case, a loss to the scheme. The order does not state a single consolidated fraud amount; what it records instead is the contested revenue share, with the prosecution putting PMJAY at about 90 per cent of the hospital's income and a forensic audit at about 26 per cent. That gap is itself one of the live issues for trial. Any recovery of scheme funds, and any question of the hospital's empanelment, sits outside the criminal bail order and would follow separately.

Where It Stands Now

As of this writing, the matter is at the trial stage with the chairman in custody. The Gujarat High Court dismissed his regular bail application on 3 September 2025, which keeps him in judicial custody pending trial but decides nothing about guilt. A bail refusal reflects the court's assessment at that stage of factors such as the gravity of the allegations and the risk to the trial; it is not a verdict, and he may renew a bail plea as the case progresses.

The chargesheet has been filed and, per the record, names multiple accused connected to the hospital, including the treating cardiologist and a director, alongside the chairman. Charges are yet to be tried. This report names only the chairman, whose bail order is the official record relied on here; the roles of the other accused are described without identifying them further, pending the court record for each.

Because the matter is pre-conviction, the presumption of innocence applies to everyone charged. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues before the trial court in Ahmedabad.

What It Means

The Khyati case is, for readers, a window onto how a cashless government health scheme can be tested. PMJAY works by letting an empanelled hospital treat a cardholder and bill the scheme, which puts the clinical judgement about what treatment is necessary at the centre of the system's integrity. The prosecution's allegation here is precisely about that judgement; the defence's answer will be that the procedures were clinically defensible. That is a matter for expert evidence at trial, not for a headline.

For a patient or a family, the practical takeaway is modest but real: a beneficiary is entitled to understand and to question a proposed procedure, to ask for the basis of an "emergency" classification, and, where time allows, to seek a second opinion before consenting. None of that presumes wrongdoing in any given case; it is ordinary prudence that a public scheme is meant to support rather than foreclose.

The wider point is procedural. An FIR, an arrest, a chargesheet and even a refusal of bail are all stages before a finding, and each is being reported here as exactly that. Readers can follow related enforcement matters in the enforcement archive, including our reports on the HPZ Token attachment and the Falcon Invoice Discounting case.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt, and a refusal of bail is a decision on custody, not a verdict. Everyone charged in the Khyati matter is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues before the trial court in Ahmedabad.

What exactly did the Gujarat High Court decide?

Per its order dated 3 September 2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14781 of 2025, the court dismissed the regular bail application of the hospital's chairman, keeping him in judicial custody pending trial. The court decided the question of bail, not the truth of the allegations.

What are the allegations about?

The prosecution alleges, as the court records, that patients drawn from a medical camp at Village Borisana were advised into angioplasty procedures they did not need, that seven underwent the procedure and two died, and that claims were made to the PMJAY scheme. An expert review is said to have found several procedures were not required. These remain allegations to be proved.

Was any money established as defrauded?

The order does not state a single fraud figure. It records a dispute over how much of the hospital's revenue came from PMJAY, with the prosecution alleging about 90 per cent and a forensic audit putting it at about 26 per cent. That question, like the clinical allegations, is for the trial.

Where can I read the official record?

The Gujarat High Court's bail order dated 3 September 2025 is available on Indian Kanoon and is the primary source for this report. Case status and further orders can be tracked through the eCourts services portal maintained by the Indian judiciary.

This report is based on the order of the Gujarat High Court dated 3 September 2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14781 of 2025, reviewed on 1 August 2026.