Chandigarh: GMSH-16 chemist arrested for fraudulent lease gets bail

Sunil Kumar, who ran the only chemist shop at Government Multi-Specialty Hospital (GMSH), Sector 16, for 29 years through multiple extensions and renewals, and at minimal rent as compared to market price, has been granted bail by a local court.

Kumar was arrested in July for obtaining the lease for the chemist shop through fraudulent means and by providing false affidavits. He has been in custody since July 8, 2023, after his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this court.

The shop was allotted to Kumar on lease for only two years through an auction in 1993. Though the first lease ended in 1995, the hospital authorities never floated a fresh tender and continued to extend the lease every five years, with the latest extension occurring in 2019 – for up to 2024.

Kumar will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of ₹1 lakh with one surety of the like amount. However, the court has imposed certain conditions, including his mandatory appearance in court on every date of hearing; he shall not give any threat or intimidation to the prosecution witnesses and he shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

The court also directed Kumar to surrender his passport, as he shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.

In court, Kumar’ counsel Munish Dewan alleged that the present FIR had been registered, as his client had filed a contempt petition against the UT health secretary.

He argued that Kumar had nothing to do with the allegations mentioned in the FIR and it was only a pressure tactic for getting the chemist shop premises vacated, adding that his client was still ready to cooperate with the investigation.

On the other hand, the public prosecutor argued that the investigation was pending, and Kumar could win over the witnesses and hamper evidence in connivance with officials of GMSH-16, if granted bail.

The court observed: “Presentation of challan and completion of trial is likely to take time. The case is primarily based on documentary evidence. No useful purpose will be served by detaining the applicant in custody further. Rather, it will amount to burdening the state exchequer. So, the court deems it appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the applicant.”