Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Cardiologist’s Bail In Alleged Forced Angioplasty PMJAY Govt Funds Claim Case
From the Editor's Desk
The Supreme Court Division bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar on Monday declined to revoke bail granted to a cardiologist accused of allegedly conducting angioplasty procedures on healthy individuals to secure reimbursements for a private hospital under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY). The Bench rejected the Gujarat government’s request to cancel the bail of Prashant Prakash Vazirani, pointing out that he had already spent about a year in pre-trial custody.
Appearing for the State, standing counsel Swati Ghildiyal urged the Court to consider the gravity of the accusations, stressing that two people had died and that Vazirani was the principal accused. Responding to these submissions, Justice Maheshwari remarked, "Now we will let him go...he is a doctor, a cardiologist, let them serve...you can keep a watch. If he's doing something, you can take recourse".
Senior advocate Ranjith Kumar represented the respondent. During the hearing, Justice Maheshwari also questioned him, "why are you doing all this? You're a cardiologist". While disposing of the matter, the Bench directed that Vazirani must cooperate with the trial. It also left the door open for the State to seek cancellation of bail if he is found involved in any similar offence or any other criminal activity.
The prosecution case traces back to a medical camp organised at Borisana village on 10 November 2024 by Khyati Hospital, where 89 people were examined. Nineteen were subsequently referred to the hospital for additional tests. Of these, seven individuals were advised angioplasty procedures, and two later died. The FIR was filed by the in-charge CDMO-cum-civil surgeon at Civil Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad.
Authorities allege that the cardiologist performed angioplasty on seven patients—some purportedly without medical necessity or consent—and that complications following the procedures led to two deaths. Investigators claim the procedures were carried out to exploit the PMJAY scheme for unlawful financial benefit. He was booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 336(2) (forgery), 340(2) (using forged documents or electronic records as genuine), 318 (cheating), and 61 (criminal conspiracy).
In May 2025, a single judge of the Gujarat High Court had refused him bail, noting that the available material disclosed a “strong prima facie” case. The High Court also accepted the prosecution’s argument that the matter went beyond medical negligence and reflected an organised effort to “mint more money” from the government under the PMJAY scheme.
Vazirani later moved the Supreme Court, but withdrew that petition with permission to approach the High Court again. He then filed a successive bail plea before the High Court, which was allowed through the order passed in December—an order the State challenged in the present proceedings.
Case title: State of Gujarat vs Prashant Prakash Vazirani
Case No.: SLP (Crl) No. 2133/2026.
Bench: Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar
