The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined anticipatory bail to a person accused of taking about ₹14.25 lakh on the assurance of securing a candidate's admission to an MD/MS (NEET-PG) course, holding that an alleged attempt to circumvent the regulated mechanism governing postgraduate medical admissions by procuring a seat against monetary consideration cannot be treated as an inter se commercial or contractual dispute. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 282]

Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that if substantiated, such conduct "would strike at the very foundation of fairness, transparency and institutional integrity governing the medical admission process", adding that the matter assumed added significance against the backdrop of growing public concern over alleged irregularities in medical entrance and admission processes, "which imperil the sanctity of a merit-based system."

FIR was registered at Police Station Faridabad Central 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 represented themselves to be educational consultants and assured him that they could facilitate his son's admission to an MD/MS course at a reputed medical college. Acting on that representation, he paid amounts on different occasions aggregating to approximately ₹14,25,000 towards admission and consultancy charges.

It is alleged that despite receiving the money the accused failed to secure the admission, demanded further sums on the pretext of confirming it, and — when the complainant sought a refund and threatened legal proceedings — refused to return the money and extended threats of dire consequences.

Senior Advocate Pardeep Singh Poonia, for the petitioner, submitted that the transaction arose out of a consultancy arrangement under which the petitioner had undertaken to assist the complainant in pursuing admission to a PG course; that the complainant had been duly informed about the counselling process for stray-vacancy seats scheduled for 20.03.2025 but failed to appear within the stipulated time; and that the petitioner had joined the investigation pursuant to notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and furnished the documents sought. The repeated issuance of notices seeking the same documents already submitted was urged to show that he had neither evaded investigation nor withheld material, so that custodial interrogation was unwarranted.

Opposing, the Additional Advocate General, assisted by Senior Advocate Kunal Dawar for the complainant, submitted that the allegations involved a substantial monetary transaction induced through false representations regarding admission to a medical course, and that having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the accusations and the manner of commission, the petitioner did not deserve pre-arrest bail.

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. Further, the financial consideration contemplated under that agreement was limited to ₹3,00,000 — ₹50,000 towards registration and ₹2,50,000 towards consultancy charges.

Against that, the allegation was that ₹10,00,000 was transferred into the bank account of the petitioner's father and a further ₹2,75,000 through PayTM into the petitioner's own account. "The magnitude and manner of the alleged monetary transactions," the Court held, "prima facie travel beyond the contours of the consultancy arrangement sought to be projected by the petitioner."

Holding that custodial interrogation could not be said to be unwarranted at this stage, the Court said that the investigation agency should 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 those involved in the alleged conspiracy.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Shahnaz Hussain v. State of Haryana

Appearances: Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sauhard S. Hooda, Mr. Mukul Malik and Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Advocates for the petitioner; Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Click here to read order