Supreme Court Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To HGPI Chairman In Post-Matric Scholarship Scam PMLA Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to Rajnish Bansal, Chairman of the Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions (HGPI) and Apex Group of Professional Institutions (AGPI), in the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case linked to the alleged Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme scam.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the ED's appeal. It held that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.

"We are in a case where serious allegations have been made. It is a case of creation of false and bogus claims and receipt of money running into crores meant for marginalised students. The mere arrest of some of the officers would not enure to the benefit of the respondent. One has to see the nature of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation. We do not find any malice in law involved. The reasoning of the High Court, in our view, cannot be sustained.", the court remarked. 

Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the High Court overlooked the material collected during the investigation while observing that the ED's reply was silent on Bansal's role.

Taking the Court through the ED's pleadings, Raju submitted that Bansal became a trustee of Maa Saraswati Educational Trust in 2010 and People Welfare Educational Trust in 2014.

He was also the authorised signatory of their bank accounts. According to the ED, he controlled the trusts' financial decisions, utilisation of funds and day-to-day affairs.

The ED alleged that Bansal, along with his brother and employees, signed and forwarded scholarship claim forms containing details of bogus SC/ST/OBC students to the Directorate of Higher Education for fraudulent disbursal of scholarships.

Raju further argued that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail despite Bansal having been declared a proclaimed offender during the proceedings.

"He was absconding. If he is absconding, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail," the ASG argued, relying on Supreme Court precedents to contend that a proclaimed offender cannot ordinarily seek anticipatory bail.

Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shyam Divan, appearing for Bansal, submitted that although the ECIR was registered in 2019, he was first summoned only in 2024. They said Bansal appeared before the ED on every occasion thereafter and fully cooperated with the investigation.

Rohatgi argued that the ED's approach changed dramatically only after Bansal lodged a complaint before the CBI. The complaint alleged that then ED Assistant Director Vishal Deep and others had demanded a ₹60 lakh bribe to spare him from arrest.

Pointing out that the CBI subsequently registered an FIR, arrested Vishal Deep and filed a chargesheet, Rohatgi submitted:

"From 2019 till 2025 nothing happened. After the FIR against Vishal Deep, the investigation became 'super active'. Summons started coming one after another. The High Court has rightly recorded this finding."

He further argued that despite five prosecution complaints having already been filed, Bansal had not been arrayed as an accused. There was therefore no justification for suddenly resorting to coercive action after years of cooperation.

Rohatgi also urged the court not to discourage people who expose corruption within investigating agencies.

"The time has come for this Court to come to the aid of people who have the courage to make verified complaints against corrupt officers. If such persons are sent to jail, nobody will have the courage to complain."

Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution of certain ED officers in the bribery case did not dilute the seriousness of the allegations against Bansal. Nor did it eliminate the need for custodial interrogation.

The court accordingly allowed the ED's appeal and set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. It clarified that its observations would not prejudice Bansal's right to seek regular bail. Any such application would be considered independently on its own merits.

Background

The case arose from an Enforcement Directorate investigation into the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime generated through fraudulent claims under the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for SC/ST/OBC students in Himachal Pradesh. The ECIR was registered on the basis of a CBI case alleging that scholarships meant for eligible students were fraudulently claimed through bogus or ineligible beneficiaries.

Rajnish Bansal, Chairman of the Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions and Apex Group of Professional Institutions was accused of supervising institutions that allegedly submitted false scholarship claims and laundered the resulting funds. Bansal contended that he had cooperated with the investigation since 2019 by appearing pursuant to summons and providing documents.

He further alleged that coercive action against him began only after he lodged a complaint against the then ED Investigating Officer, Vishal Deep who was later booked by the CBI in a bribery case.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the anticipatory bail application was maintainable even though proclamation proceedings had been initiated, as Bansal had not been declared a proclaimed offender when he approached the Court. The Court also found that the ED failed to satisfactorily explain why no coercive action had been taken from 2019 until after the arrest of the then Investigating Officer, despite Bansal's participation in the investigation.

It directed that in the event of arrest, Bansal be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the prescribed conditions.