Bail denied in Alleged Misuse of Post Matric Scholarship Funds for SC/ST/OBC Students

Rajdeep Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Himachal Pradesh High Court)

In the case of Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar vs. Directorate of Enforcement, the applicants filed bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. They were implicated in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The charges stemmed from an FIR originally filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

The applicants, directors of ASAMS Education Group, were accused of involvement in a large-scale fraud related to the misappropriation of funds meant for scholarships under the Post Matric Scholarship Scheme for SC, ST, and OBC students in Himachal Pradesh. The ED asserted that they, along with others, diverted substantial amounts from these scholarships through fraudulent means. The ED’s investigation contended that the applicants had set up shell companies and misrepresented affiliations with recognized universities to siphon off scholarship funds into their accounts.

The ED’s case against the applicants included allegations that they created unauthorized fee structures, falsified enrollment in distance learning programs, and used students’ bank accounts to funnel funds into their shell companies. The investigation highlighted discrepancies in claims submitted to the Directorate of Higher Education, Shimla, alleging that fees were collected for courses not accredited by legitimate educational institutions.

The bail applications were vehemently opposed by the ED, citing the serious nature of offenses under the PMLA and the ongoing investigation’s need for further examination of evidence. The ED argued that the applicants, if released on bail, could interfere with witnesses and tamper with evidence crucial to the case. They also emphasized the distinct procedural requirements and stringent conditions for bail under the PMLA, which, according to them, were not satisfied by the applicants.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.