Gujarat High Court denies bail to Khyati Hospital chairman in PM-JAY case

What the Record Shows

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the regular bail application of Kartik Jashubhai Patel, described in the order as the chairman of Khyati Multispecialty Hospital, Ahmedabad, on 3 September 2025 in R/CR.MA/14781/2025. The court recorded that the prosecution had placed material on record and declined to release him, and he remained in custody pending trial. The order arises from FIR No. 11191020240478 of 2024, registered at Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad on 10 November 2024.

The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including sections 105, 110, 336, 340, 318 and 61, per the High Court order. Investigators allege that the hospital exploited the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) by conducting cardiac procedures that were not clinically warranted and by generating bogus beneficiary cards. The allegations are yet to be tried.

Not every accused has been treated alike. In R/CR.MA/7913/2025, decided on 15 July 2025, the High Court granted bail to Chirag Hirasingh Rajput, described as a hospital director, on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with conditions including monthly attendance at the police station, surrender of passport and a bar on leaving India without permission. The court applied parity with a co-accused who had been released earlier. Several other accused, including finance and marketing staff, have obtained conditional bail while the case proceeds.

The accused have contested the allegations through their counsel in the bail proceedings, denying involvement and disputing the prosecution's characterisation of their roles. Those denials are on the record before the High Court.

How It Worked

The prosecution's account, as summarised in the High Court orders, begins with patient recruitment. Investigators allege that patients were drawn through a free diagnostic camp at Borisana in Mehsana district and referred to the hospital, where some who attended with non-cardiac complaints were, according to the FIR, pressured into angiography and angioplasty they had initially refused.

On the billing side, the prosecution alleges that PM-JAY login credentials were outsourced and tampered with to generate nearly 3,000 bogus Ayushman cards between late 2022 and 2024, and that patient files were forged and disease severity overstated in angiography records so that stent procedures would qualify for reimbursement. In the chairman's bail order, the court noted the prosecution's case that procedures fell when one doctor performed only clinically justified interventions, and that instructions were then given to increase admissions and procedures to restore revenue. These are allegations the court weighed at the bail stage, not findings of guilt.

The procedural history is documented. The FIR was registered on 10 November 2024, days before two patients died in November 2024 following angioplasties that investigators later assessed as medically unnecessary. The Gujarat Crime Branch and state CID investigated; the hospital's chief executive and its chairman were arrested in January 2025, the chargesheet was filed, and bail applications were heard through 2025, culminating in the 15 July and 3 September orders. Survivors and bereaved families separately petitioned the Gujarat High Court, seeking action on their complaints.

Investigators also allege that about Rs 8 crore of the money claimed was diverted towards a separate hospital project at Naroda. That claim, like the rest, remains to be established at trial.

Who Lost Money

The scale alleged is substantial. Per the investigation, 3,578 angiography and angioplasty cases were billed through the PM-JAY portal over roughly two and a half years for claims of about Rs 16.6 crore. The counterparty that bore the alleged loss is the public exchequer: the AB-PMJAY fund and the Gujarat State Health Agency, which administers the scheme in the state and settles hospital claims.

The human cost is at the centre of the matter. Two patients died in November 2024 after procedures that investigators allege were unnecessary, and several others required intensive care. It is because of those deaths that the case moved from a scheme-level billing concern to a criminal investigation, and it is why the editor's caution on causation matters: what is alleged is that the procedures were medically unnecessary, not that they have been proven to have caused the deaths.

How much of the claimed money will be recovered is not yet clear. Where reimbursements are alleged to have been obtained on forged records, recovery and de-empanelment proceedings run separately from the criminal trial, and affected beneficiaries who were subjected to procedures have their own petitions pending. As with most matters at this stage, the headline figure of Rs 16.6 crore is a claim to be tested, not a sum shown to have been finally lost.

Where It Stands Now

As of the most recent orders, the position is mixed. The chairman remained in custody after the High Court dismissed his bail on 3 September 2025, while the director and several other accused were released on conditional bail earlier in 2025. The chargesheet has been filed and the matter is at the trial-court stage in Ahmedabad; charges are yet to be tried and no finding of guilt has been recorded against any accused.

At scheme level, the Gujarat health minister told the state Assembly that 49 hospitals had been suspended for PM-JAY rule violations, with 29 suspensions still in force, against about Rs 7,235 crore paid on 27.55 lakh approved claims over two years, per contemporaneous reporting of his statement. Whether the specific de-empanelment of the hospital is final or under challenge is a matter for the State Health Agency's own record.

An FIR and a chargesheet contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Readers following the enforcement archive will recognise the pattern from other public-fund matters, such as the Himachal Pradesh scholarship case and the Indore civic fake-bill complaint, where the official process runs long after the initial arrests.

What It Means

The matter illustrates a structural weakness in reimbursement-based welfare schemes. In an interventional cardiology setting, a single clinical reading of an angiogram is at once the gate between a patient and a stent, and the gate between the hospital and a PM-JAY payment. Where the same signature controls both, the incentive to overstate severity is built into the design, which is why the scheme relies on medical audits, empanelment conditions and post-payment scrutiny rather than trust alone.

For a patient, the practical protections are checkable. A hospital's empanelment under PM-JAY can be verified on the official portal at pmjay.gov.in, and a beneficiary is entitled to a second opinion before an elective procedure; a genuine PM-JAY case does not require the patient to pay or to hand over documents to an intermediary at a camp. Understanding that empanelment can be suspended for rule violations is itself useful, because a suspension is a signal that the State Health Agency has found cause to act.

The wider takeaway is about process rather than panic. A criminal case of this kind moves in stages, from FIR to chargesheet to trial, and the bail orders show the courts distinguishing between accused by their alleged roles. That calibration, not a single dramatic verdict, is how the system tests who did what, and it is why an accusation, however serious, is not the same as a finding.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. An FIR and a chargesheet contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, the charges are yet to be tried before the trial court in Ahmedabad, and due process continues.

What exactly are the accused charged with?

Per the FIR at Vastrapur Police Station, the accused face charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including sections 318, 336, 340 and 61, relating to alleged cheating, forgery and endangering life. The prosecution alleges unnecessary cardiac procedures billed to PM-JAY and bogus Ayushman cards, all to be established at trial.

Did the cardiac procedures cause the two deaths?

That has not been established. Two patients died in November 2024 following angioplasties that investigators later assessed as medically unnecessary. Causation is a matter for the trial court and the expert medical committee, not something to be assumed.

Can the bail decisions be appealed?

Yes. A refusal of bail can be renewed on changed circumstances or challenged before the Supreme Court, and the State can seek cancellation of a bail already granted. As of the latest orders the chairman remained in custody and several co-accused were on conditional bail.

How can I check whether a hospital is empanelled under PM-JAY?

The National Health Authority lists empanelled hospitals on the official PM-JAY portal at pmjay.gov.in, and status can be verified there or via the scheme helpline. Empanelment can be suspended by the State Health Agency for rule violations.

Where can I read the official record?

The Gujarat High Court bail orders, including R/CR.MA/14781/2025 dated 3 September 2025, set out the FIR number, the sections invoked and the prosecution's case, and are reported on Indian Kanoon.

This report is based on the Gujarat High Court order dated 3 September 2025 in R/CR.MA/14781/2025 and the related bail order dated 15 July 2025, reviewed on 2 August 2026.