HC denies anticipatory bail in Rs 14.25 lakh NEET PG admission fraud case
Chandigarh: Observing that the alleged attempt to bypass the regulated medical admission process by securing a postgraduate medical seat for money was serious and could not be treated merely as a commercial or contractual dispute, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of allegedly taking Rs 14.25 lakh from a complainant on the promise of securing his son admission to an MD/MS (NEET PG) course.
Single Bench Justice Virinder Aggarwal ruled, "The allegations assume heightened seriousness, as they pertain to an alleged attempt to circumvent the legitimate and regulated mechanism governing admission to postgraduate medical courses by procuring a medical seat against monetary consideration. If substantiated, such conduct would strike at the very foundation of fairness, transparency and institutional integrity governing the medical admission process and, therefore, cannot be relegated to the realm of a mere inter se commercial or contractual dispute."
The Court also held that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation could not be considered unnecessary at this stage, as the investigating agency needed to trace the complete money trail, understand the alleged modus operandi, identify other persons involved and determine their respective roles.
Case details
The accused filed a plea before the court seeking anticipatory bail after the registration of an FIR on April 17, 2026, at Police Station Faridabad Central, Haryana under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 351(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding respectively to Sections 34, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC.
According to the prosecution, the complainant came into contact with the petitioner and two co-accused, who allegedly introduced themselves as educational consultants and assured him that they could arrange admission for his son to an MD/MS (NEET-PG) course at a reputed medical college.
Trusting them, the complainant allegedly paid around Rs 14.25 lakh to the accused persons in several instalments towards admission and consultancy charges. However, despite receiving the money, the accused allegedly failed to secure the promised admission and later demanded additional money on the pretext of confirming the seat.
When the complainant sought a refund and threatened to initiate legal proceedings, the accused allegedly refused to return the money and threatened him with dire consequences. Based on these allegations, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused.
Seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner’s counsel argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that the transaction arose from a consultancy arrangement under which the petitioner had agreed to assist the complainant with the PG admission process.
The petitioner further claimed that he had informed the complainant about the stray-vacancy counselling scheduled for March 20, 2025, but the complainant failed to appear within the stipulated time.
His counsel also submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation after receiving notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and had already provided the documents sought by the investigating agency. It was argued that the repeated demands for the same documents, despite their earlier submission, showed that the petitioner had neither evaded the investigation nor withheld any material information.
The State of Haryana and the complainant opposed the plea, arguing that the case involved a substantial monetary transaction allegedly based on false representations regarding admission to a medical course and and that, having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the accusations, as well as the manner in which the alleged offence was committed, they contended that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of prearrest bail at this stage.
Observation by the Court
On the consultancy defence, the Court noted that a perusal of the agreement executed in favour of the entity relied upon prima facie did not disclose the petitioner to be its proprietor or owner.
The agreement provided for a total payment of Rs 3 lakh, including Rs 50,000 as registration charges and Rs 2.50 lakh as consultancy fees. However, the allegations stated that Rs 10 lakh was transferred to the petitioner’s father's bank account, while another Rs 2.75 lakh was transferred via PayTM to the petitioner’s account.
"The magnitude and manner of the alleged monetary transactions, therefore, prima facie travel beyond the contours of the consultancy arrangement sought to be projected by the petitioner," the bench said.
Considering the circumstances, the Court held, "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be said to be unwarranted. The investigating agency is required to trace the complete money trail, unravel the precise modus operandi, ascertain the source and ultimate destination of the amounts allegedly received, identify the persons forming part of the alleged network, and determine the nature, extent and inter se roles of the persons involved in the alleged conspiracy. These aspects, which are material to a fair and effective investigation, cannot be foreclosed at the threshold by extending the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail."
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner, the Court observed that the accused does not merit the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage and therefore dismissed the plea.
To view the court order, click on the link below:
