High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in NEET PG Admission Fraud Case; Labels Seat-for-Cash Matter as Grave

The NEET PG admission scam case has escalated, as the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of fraudulently collecting INR 14.25 lakh to secure a seat in an MD/MS program. The court emphasized that attempts to circumvent the established medical counseling process are serious offenses and cannot be dismissed as mere financial disputes. This ruling highlights the court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the medical admission system.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal, presiding over the case, noted that if the allegations are substantiated, they could undermine the fairness, transparency, and credibility of the postgraduate medical admission process. The court mandated that the investigating agency be allowed to trace the alleged financial transactions involved in the scam. Additionally, the court called for the identification of other individuals implicated in the scheme to better understand how the fraudulent admission arrangements were orchestrated.

According to the prosecution, the complainant was introduced to the accused and two accomplices, who posed as educational consultants. They allegedly guaranteed admission for the complainant's son into a reputable MD/MS (NEET PG) program. The complainant reportedly made several payments totaling INR 14.25 lakh. However, the accused failed to deliver on the promised admission and subsequently requested more money to confirm the seat.

When the complainant sought a refund and threatened legal action, the accused allegedly refused to return the funds and issued threats. An FIR was filed on April 17, 2026, at the Faridabad Central Police Station in Haryana, citing various charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including cheating, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. The accused sought protection from arrest, maintaining his innocence throughout the proceedings.

While dismissing the anticipatory bail application, the court clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as a judgment on the accused's guilt or innocence. This case continues to unfold, drawing attention to the critical need for vigilance in the medical admission process to prevent exploitation and ensure fairness for all candidates.