₹1.27 Crore MBBS Seat Scam: P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to ‘DMER-Linked’ Admission Consultants in NEET Fraud Case

Case Name: Anant Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026

Citation: CRM-M-17-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to the accused in an alleged ₹1.27 crore MBBS admission fraud, holding that the allegations disclosed a coordinated conspiracy to cheat the complainant on the false promise of securing a management quota seat through alleged connections in the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER), Haryana. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy and trace the money trail.

Summary: The petition before the High Court sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in FIR No.195 dated 22.12.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Dr. Karan Gupta, a dental surgeon, alleged that his daughter failed to secure admission in MBBS through NEET-2024. In August 2024, through a relative, he came into contact with the main accused, Manav Singla, who allegedly assured him of arranging a management quota seat in a private medical college.

It was alleged that an initial amount of ₹5 lakhs was paid as token money, followed by another ₹2 lakhs towards counselling participation. Subsequently, the complainant was introduced to the present petitioners at Panchkula, where they allegedly projected themselves as influential persons having strong connections with the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER), Haryana.

According to the FIR, a deal for securing an MBBS seat was finalized for a total consideration of ₹1.27 crores, pursuant to which another ₹32 lakhs was paid by the complainant. However, despite repeated assurances, no admission materialized and only part of the money was allegedly returned while a substantial amount remained unpaid. Threat allegations were also levelled when refund was demanded.

The petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated and were merely consultants assisting in admission processes. It was contended that no money was either demanded or received by them directly and that the actual dispute was between the complainant and the main accused. The petitioners further argued that the matter was essentially civil in nature and relied upon earlier inquiries where no concrete evidence allegedly surfaced against them.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioners had actively participated in the conspiracy and facilitated the fraudulent transaction by falsely representing their influence within DMER, Haryana. The prosecution emphasized that economic offences of such magnitude have serious societal impact and require custodial interrogation for tracing the money trail and identifying other conspirators.

Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, the High Court observed that the allegations were not vague but disclosed a coordinated and concerted effort by the accused persons to induce the complainant into parting with huge sums of money under the false pretext of securing admission to an MBBS course.

The Court specifically noted that the petitioners were allegedly present during the meeting where the ₹1.27 crore deal was finalized and had projected themselves as persons capable of securing a management quota seat through influential connections. The Court held that even if no money was directly received by them, their alleged role in facilitating the transaction was sufficient to attract criminal liability at the investigation stage.

The High Court further observed that the scale of the alleged fraud and the manner in which the transaction was structured prima facie indicated a larger organized and premeditated conspiracy. The Court held that custodial interrogation was indispensable to ascertain the complete modus operandi and involvement of other persons.

Relying upon State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and that custodial interrogation in economic offences is often essential for effective investigation.

Finding no plausible material suggesting false implication, the Court held that grant of anticipatory bail at the nascent stage of investigation could seriously hamper effective investigation into the alleged admission racket.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition and held that considering the gravity of the alleged ₹1.27 crore MBBS admission fraud, the petitioners did not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.