Delhi High Court Rejects Bail To Accused Allegedly Involved In Fake MBBS Admissions Scam

Rejecting the application, the court noted that the bail applicant before the court, had also been arrayed as an accused in a case lodged by another police station for murder of one of the Directors of the said Crack Ur Career Pvt Ltd, and that considering the magnitude of the offence, the court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage.

The court further noted that the case was "one of a largescale fraud wherein fake admission letters and fake receipts have been issued by the accused to gullible students stating that they have secured admission in MBBS courses," and that the "allegation is that the accused is involved in duping innocent students by taking money from them and promising admission in colleges and giving fake letters of admission and affixing fake seals". Stating that the investigation for the said offences was still underway, the court refused to grant bail to the petitioner who has been under arrest since 27.11.2019. The prosecution submitted that the petitioner, alongwith other accused persons in the case, faces charges under Sections offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 IPC read with Sections 201, 120-B & 34 IPC.

The brief facts of the case were that a number of complaints were received against one Crack Ur Career Private Limited stating that the company had cheated people of large sums of money, on the fake promise of tie-ups with various institutions offering MBBS degree courses, in which they could help the complainants secure admission.

Investigation had revealed that the accused persons copied formats of admission letters of different colleges and had set up shop issuing fake admission letters to the students. When the students became aware of the fraud played upon them, the accused persons closed shop and absconded. Fee slips, admission letters of different universities, details of bank accounts from which money was transferred and the accounts to which it was transferred were verified, seals/stamps of various colleges had all been recovered from the accused including the petitioner herein.

Appearing for the bail petitioner, Adv Naresh Panwar relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516, and of the Gujarat High Court in Nikita Baldevbhai Dave v. State of Gujarat Criminal Misc. Application No. 3662/2011, and argued that the FIR did not contain the name of the petitioner, and was merely against the company, and therefore he could not be made vicariously liable for the affairs of the company, unless specifically named in the FIR.

Rejecting Panwar's argument, the court held that the precedent of R. Kalyani did not apply to the present case, as the present case involves a large scale conspiracy in which the accused petitioner's role had been made out in the chargesheet.