Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a person accused of allegedly taking around ₹14.25 lakh on the promise of securing admission to an MD/MS course through the NEET-PG process. The court held that an alleged attempt to bypass the regulated medical admission system by paying money for a seat cannot be reduced to a private commercial or contractual dispute.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that if the allegations are established, such conduct would undermine the fairness, transparency and institutional integrity of the medical admission process. The court also noted the wider concern over alleged irregularities in medical entrance and admission procedures, saying such practices threaten the sanctity of a merit-based system.
The case relates to an FIR registered at Faridabad Central police station under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 351(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 34, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the complainant came into contact with the petitioner and two other accused, who allegedly represented themselves as educational consultants. They reportedly assured the complainant that they could facilitate his son’s admission to an MD/MS course at a reputed medical college.
Based on the alleged assurance, the complainant paid approximately ₹14.25 lakh on different occasions towards admission and consultancy-related charges. The prosecution alleged that despite receiving the money, the accused failed to secure the promised admission and subsequently demanded additional amounts on the pretext of confirming the seat.
The complainant allegedly sought a refund and threatened to initiate legal proceedings. According to the allegations, the accused refused to return the money and allegedly threatened him with serious consequences.
The petitioner defended the case by claiming that the entire transaction arose from a consultancy arrangement intended to assist the complainant with the postgraduate admission process. It was submitted that the complainant had been informed about counselling for stray-vacancy seats scheduled for March 20, 2025, but failed to appear within the stipulated period.
The defence also argued that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation after receiving notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It was submitted that he had provided the documents sought by investigators and had neither avoided questioning nor withheld relevant material. On that basis, the petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The prosecution and complainant opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that the allegations involved a substantial monetary transaction allegedly induced through false representations concerning admission to a medical course. Given the nature and seriousness of the allegations, they contended that the petitioner did not deserve protection from arrest.
The High Court also examined the consultancy agreement relied upon by the petitioner. It noted that the document did not prima facie establish that the petitioner was the proprietor or owner of the entity mentioned in the agreement. More importantly, the agreement contemplated a total financial consideration of only ₹3 lakh, comprising ₹50,000 towards registration and ₹2.50 lakh towards consultancy charges.
The alleged flow of money was substantially higher. According to the prosecution, ₹10 lakh was transferred to a bank account belonging to the petitioner’s father, while another ₹2.75 lakh was allegedly transferred through PayTM to the petitioner’s own account.
The court observed that the magnitude and manner of the alleged transactions prima facie went beyond the consultancy arrangement projected by the petitioner. It therefore found that custodial interrogation could not be considered unwarranted at the present stage of investigation.
The court directed investigators to trace the complete money trail, determine the precise modus operandi, identify the source and ultimate destination of the funds and establish the persons allegedly forming part of the network. Investigators were also asked to ascertain the respective roles of those involved in the alleged conspiracy.
Holding that the allegations raised issues beyond an ordinary contractual dispute, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition in Shahnaz Hussain v. State of Haryana. The order leaves the investigating agency free to proceed with the probe, including examination of the financial transactions and the alleged network involved in securing medical admission through monetary consideration.
