Gujarat High Court denies bail to Khyati Hospital chairman in PMJAY case

What the Record Shows

The Gujarat High Court on 3 September 2025 dismissed the regular bail application of Kartik Jashubhai Patel, described in the order as the chairman and 51 per cent owner of Khyati Multispeciality Hospital in Ahmedabad, in a case arising from alleged unnecessary cardiac procedures billed to the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY). The order, passed by Justice M. R. Mengdey in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14781 of 2025, records that the matter stems from FIR No. 11191020240478 of 2024 registered at Vastrapur police station, Ahmedabad, on 10 November 2024.

Per the order, the offences booked include culpable homicide not amounting to murder, forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy, listed as sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The investigation was carried out by the Ahmedabad city police, with the Detection of Crime Branch handling the arrests; a chargesheet has been filed and the investigation is recorded as complete.

The court noted the prosecution case that patients were subjected to angiography and angioplasty without clinical need, and that two patients died after procedures performed on 11 November 2024. Patel's counsel argued that he was outside India during the relevant period, that he is not a qualified doctor, that co-accused running day-to-day operations had already been granted bail, and that he received investment returns rather than any improper benefit. The court declined bail notwithstanding these submissions.

How It Worked

According to the case recorded in the High Court order, a medical camp was organised at Borisana village at which 89 persons were admitted and 19 were referred onward to Khyati Hospital. The order states that cardiogram and angiography procedures were performed on those referred despite many having no cardiac complaint, and that seven went on to undergo angioplasty. The prosecution alleges that consent was not properly obtained and that the procedures were not clinically warranted.

The police case, as summarised in the order, is that Patel issued a "standing instruction" to hospital staff to bring in more and more patients and to raise the volume of procedures in order to increase revenue under the PMJAY scheme. The court weighed that allegation against the defence contention that Patel was an investor absent from the country rather than a clinician directing treatment.

Investigators have alleged a wider pattern beyond the single camp. Per police accounts cited at the time of the arrests, free cardiac check-up camps were run in villages to identify PMJAY cardholders, patients were logged in the "emergency" category so that government pre-authorisation could be fast-tracked, and the hospital then billed the scheme for the procedures. The chargesheet groups a hospital marketing chain alongside clinical staff: those arrested include a visiting cardiologist, the chief executive, a marketing director and marketing staff, a partner and a director.

The procedural history runs from the FIR of 10 November 2024 through a series of arrests in late 2024, Patel's own arrest at Ahmedabad airport in January 2025 after a period abroad, the filing of the chargesheet, and the dismissal of his regular bail plea on 3 September 2025. All of these characterisations are allegations by the prosecution and have not been tested at trial.

Who Lost Money

The financial injury alleged in the case falls on two sets of parties: the PMJAY beneficiaries who underwent the procedures, and the public exchequer that funds the scheme. PMJAY is a government-funded health-assurance programme for below-poverty-line and low-income households, and every rupee claimed against it is public money.

On the amounts, the order records a dispute. The prosecution's case is that the hospital drew substantial revenue from PMJAY and that a large share came from cardiac claims of this type; police figures cited at the arrests put the hospital's PMJAY drawings at about Rs 11 crore in a year. Patel's defence contended before the High Court that only 26 per cent of revenue came from PMJAY, against a prosecution figure it put at 90 per cent. The court did not resolve that factual dispute at the bail stage.

The gravest cost is not financial. Two patients died after the procedures of 11 November 2024, and the culpable-homicide limb of the case turns on those deaths rather than on the billing. What the affected households have recovered, if anything, is not established on the record reviewed, and the recovery of any wrongly paid PMJAY funds would follow the outcome of the trial and any departmental action.

Where It Stands Now

As of the most recent official record reviewed, the matter is at the post-chargesheet stage with the trial pending. The Gujarat High Court dismissed Patel's regular bail application on 3 September 2025, so he remains in custody in this case; the order notes that certain co-accused involved in day-to-day operations had earlier been granted bail, which is a fact about their custody status and not a finding on the merits.

The hospital was de-empanelled from PMJAY and its cath-lab activity halted following the deaths, per the State Health Agency's action reported at the time. No court has yet ruled on the charges, and no accused has been convicted. The allegations of unnecessary procedures, forgery and conspiracy remain to be proved at trial.

A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Readers should treat every characterisation in this report as an allegation attributed to the police or recorded by the court at the bail stage, not as an established fact.

What It Means

The case has become a reference point in how the PMJAY scheme polices clinical necessity, because the alleged mechanism does not depend on fake patients or forged identities so much as on real cardholders being routed into procedures the prosecution says were not needed. That is harder to catch than a duplicate claim, and it is why the "emergency" pre-authorisation route, meant to save lives, sits at the centre of the allegations.

For a beneficiary, the practical protections are worth knowing. A hospital's empanelment can be checked on the official PMJAY portal before agreeing to a cash-free procedure, a second opinion is a patient's right before any elective cardiac intervention, and the scheme's own grievance mechanism accepts complaints about pressure to undergo treatment. None of that pre-judges this case; it is the ordinary diligence the scheme is built to support.

For the exchequer, the matter illustrates why audit of high-value cardiac and orthopaedic claims, and cross-checking of "emergency" flags against clinical records, are the controls regulators lean on. The parallel runs through other government-scheme enforcement matters, from provident-fund claims to direct-benefit payouts. Further enforcement matters are tracked in Oquilia's enforcement archive.

FAQ

What did the Gujarat High Court decide?

The court dismissed Kartik Patel's regular bail application on 3 September 2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14781 of 2025. It did not rule on his guilt or innocence. A bail decision only concerns whether an accused person is released pending trial, and the case now proceeds to trial on the chargesheet.

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing in the police case has been tested or established at trial, and this report attributes every wrongdoing claim to the prosecution or to the court's record at the bail stage.

What is PMJAY and who bears the cost?

PMJAY, the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, is a government-funded health-assurance scheme covering hospital treatment for eligible low-income households. Hospitals bill the scheme rather than the patient, so any wrongful claim is a loss to public funds. Beneficiaries can verify a hospital's empanelment on the official PMJAY portal.

What are the accused charged with?

Per the High Court order, the offences booked include culpable homicide not amounting to murder, forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy, under sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These are charges to be proved at trial, not convictions.

Where can I read the official order?

The Gujarat High Court order dated 3 September 2025 in Kartik Jashubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat is available on Indian Kanoon. It sets out the FIR details, the sections charged, the prosecution's allegations and the defence submissions considered at the bail stage.

This report is based on the order of the Gujarat High Court dated 3 September 2025 in Kartik Jashubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and the FIR details it records, reviewed on 4 August 2026.