Shimla Scholarship Scam: Arrest Of Vice-Chairman of Educational Institution Under PMLA Valid: Himachal Pradesh High

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the arrest of the vice-chairman of an educational institution involved in the Shimla Scholarship Scam under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was valid.

The bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel has observed that the Department and the documents appended with the reply, it is evident that statutory safeguards were properly complied with in the present case. The Arresting Officer was an Authorized Officer under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act and the ‘reasons to believe’ that the petitioner was ‘guilty’ of the offence punishable under the PML Act were based on the material in possession of the Authorized Officer. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was informed about the ‘grounds of arrest’ soon after his arrest.

The bench noted that the ‘reasons to believe’ categorically spell out that Vikas Bansal was involved in the predicate offence as well as in the commission of offences under PML Act. In terms of the contents of the ‘reasons to believe’, Vikas Bansal through HGPI had generated Proceeds of Crime (PoC) of Rs.14,49,03,665/- by submitting 1729 false and bogus claims and had generated Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs.3,80,28,270/- by submitting 636 false and bogus claims to the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh through AGPI of students, who were not officially registered or enrolled in courses with respective Universities/Board for HGPI and AGPI.

The bench observed that in the ‘reasons to believe’ that through the Trust named Maa Saraswati Educational Trust, Vikas Bansal had acquired two immovable properties separately at Kala Amb, H.P., measuring 59.09 bighas of land for Rs.59.45 lac and 13.06 bighas of land for Rs.90 lac in the year 2017 by using the fee collected from students of HGPI and bank loans and the money obtained as a result of bogus claims of scholarship under PMS Scheme was mixed with the legitimate income of Maa Saraswati Educational Trust and People Welfare Education Trust. The Proceeds of Crime were utilized for payment of salaries and expansion of College etc.

Background

After the lodging of FIR, CBI conducted searches and seizure at 22 educational institutions, including the Himalayan Group of Professional Educational Institutions and Apex Group of Educational Institutions, which had applied for and received financial assistance under the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) students in State of Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner was serving as Vice Chairman of the Himalayan Group of Professional Educational Institutions at Kala Amb, District Sirmaur. In the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 8th of April 2022. He was enlarged on bail by this High Court. After conclusion of the investigation, multiple Charge Sheets were filed by CBI before Special Judge (CBI), Shimla. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with eight other individuals and challan was presented before the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, on 18.04.2022. Charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988.

As per the petitioner, he was summoned only once on 5.11.2019 by the then Investigating Officer, namely, Vishal Arya. Petitioner fully cooperated with the investigation, disclosed all facts within his knowledge and his statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. Thereafter, no summons were issued to the petitioner or received by him until 30.01.2024, on which date, he was arrested by the officers of the respondent in an illegal manner.

Conclusion

The court held that the arrest of the petitioner was not in violation of Section 19(1) of the Act, the remand of the petitioner by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate can also not be faulted with, as the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate is also confined to ensuring that the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act are complied with in letter and spirit.

Case Details

Case Title: Vikas Bansal Versus Directorate of Enforcement through its Deputy Director, Shimla

Case No.: CWP No. 3600 of 2025

Date: 30.05.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Randeep S. Rai, Senior Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Zoheb Hussain, Special Counsel for Enforcement Directorate

Read More: Soya bean Meal Exporter Entitled To 1% AIR Customs Duty Drawback From 2008: Supreme Court