New Delhi: The anti-corruption branch (ACB) Tuesday opposed former Central Procurement Agency (CPA) official Vinod Kumar Ranga’s bail plea in an alleged medical equipment procurement scam, alleging that he was the custodian of the public exchequer when the scam took place and files crucial to the investigation went “coincidentally” missing.Special judge Vidya Prakash was hearing Ranga’s second bail plea and listed the matter for Oct 17.Senior additional public prosecutor Kumar Sanjay submitted that the “applicant is willing to legalise or normalise the destruction or disappearing of official files by erring officials”. The agency alleged that Ranga allowed co-accused Rajiv Kumar Rangila’s company, F Med, to bid for 448 portable X-ray machines despite failing to meet the prescribed eligibility criteria.The allegations against Ranga, former head of the CPA office, include cartel formation and criminal conspiracy with private suppliers to rig the bidding process. Citing two key witnesses, who allegedly questioned the bidding process and were subsequently transferred, ACB claimed that Ranga had used the procurement process to facilitate the release of govt funds to selected entities linked to other accused, including Rangila. The funds were subsequently diverted through various accounts and transactions, it claimed.The defence argued that while a team collectively took decisions on the tender process, only Ranga had been made an accused.Ranga also contended that the rates of handheld portable X-ray machines procured in Delhi were comparable to those bought by the chief medical and health officer in Korba, Chhattisgarh. He made similar arguments regarding linen sheets and ORS sachets. Calling the comparison “not sustainable”, the prosecution argued that there was a “huge difference in the quantity ordered in these two tenders”. ACB alleged that the bids were concluded within a day in collusion with co-accused, and payments to the alleged vendor were made at “high speed”,.The agency accused Ranga of being “instrumental in destruction of the relevant official files” despite the vigilance department’s repeated requests to restore them.
