The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the anticipatory bail granted to Rajnish Bansal, chairman of the Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions (HGPI) and Apex Group of Professional Institutions (AGPI), in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED’s) money laundering case linked to the alleged post-matric scholarship scam in Himachal Pradesh.
A Bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale allowed the ED’s appeal, holding that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had not properly considered the seriousness of the allegations or the agency’s request 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… 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 Bench said.
Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju submitted that the High Court ignored material collected during the investigation.
He argued that Bansal, a trustee of two educational trusts and the authorised signatory to their bank accounts, controlled their finances and day-to-day affairs.
According to the ED, Bansal and others submitted scholarship claims using details of fictitious SC, ST and OBC students to fraudulently obtain government funds. Raju also argued that Bansal, having been declared a proclaimed offender, was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shyam Divan, appearing for Bansal, argued that the ECIR was registered in 2019, but he was first summoned only in 2024 and had cooperated with the investigation thereafter.
They contended that the ED intensified its action only after Bansal complained to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that then ED Assistant Director Vishal Deep had demanded a Rs 60 lakh bribe to shield him from arrest. The CBI subsequently registered an FIR, arrested the officer and filed a chargesheet.
The defence also argued that Bansal had not been named as an accused in five prosecution complaints already filed by the ED and that there was no justification for coercive action after years of cooperation.
Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution of certain ED officers in the bribery case did not diminish the gravity of the allegations against Bansal or eliminate the need for custodial interrogation.
The Bench clarified that its observations would not prejudice Bansal’s right to seek regular bail, which would be considered independently on its own merits.
The case stems from allegations that scholarship funds meant for eligible SC, ST and OBC students in Himachal Pradesh were siphoned off through fake or ineligible beneficiaries.
The High Court had earlier granted Bansal anticipatory bail, observing that he had cooperated with the investigation and that the ED had failed to explain the delay in taking coercive action.
