The ED, while seeking his additional custody for six days, told the court that Patkar had given a statement to this effect. The court, however, raised questions on admissibility of statements recorded while in custody. Special judge MG Deshpande extended Patkar’s ED custody till August 1. Co-accused Dr Kishor Bisure, who was arrested along with Patkar on July 21, was sent to judicial custody. The ED did not seek his further custody.
Special public prosecutor Kavita Patil also submitted that on being confronted with records and statements, Patkar did not cooperate fully and was giving evasive replies. Patil submitted that Patkar said he had no role in the functioning of Covid centre and denied asking anyone to carry out any activity. The prosecutor said this was contradictory to the statements of a witness, who said he had followed Patkar’s instructions. Patil said the ED had recorded the statement of a partner who said all bills generated and forwarded were on instructions of Patkar.
The ED also submitted that Patkar managed manipulation of attendance sheets and fraudulently raised bills to be submitted to BMC authorities. The ED said Patkar has indulged in criminal activities and hatched a conspiracy in connivance with other partners of Lifeline Hospital Management Services (LHMS) and officials of BMC to obtain a tender. Patkar, along with three other partners, formed LHMS in 2020, and within a month, it got a contract from BMC to manage Dahisar field hospital. “During ED custody of accused… it is revealed that he (Patkar) has received a substantial amount of PoC (proceeds of crime) from LHMS in his personal bank account,” the ED said. It said that he directed staff of LHMS to carry out manipulation or fabrication of attendance sheets at jumbo Covid centers and fraudulently raised bills to BMC authorities in connivance with Bisure, dean of Jumbo Covid Centers, and other BMC Officials.
“From the scrutiny of bank accounts, it is evident that Sujit Patkar received substantial amounts from the funds,” the ED said. Opposing extension of remand, Patkar’s advocate Subhash Jha submitted that every partner is responsible for the acts of other partners. “Strange case here, that you pick one of the partners, decide to protect them, and they speak against this man. Law does not permit such a thing,” Jha said.
