Mukul Rohatgi & Shyam Divan's Powerful Arguments Rejected| Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail

Case- SLP(Crl) No. 4611/2026 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Vs RAJNISH BANSAL The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment by setting 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 money laundering case arising out of the alleged Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme Scam. A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the Enforcement Directorate's appeal, holding that the Himachal Pradesh High Court failed to adequately appreciate the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Court observed that the case involves allegations of creating false and bogus scholarship claims worth crores of rupees meant for marginalized SC/ST/OBC students and held that the arrest of certain officials in connected proceedings could not dilute the seriousness of the allegations against the respondent. Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that Rajnish Bansal played a central role in the functioning of educational trusts that allegedly submitted fraudulent scholarship claims. According to the ED, Bansal was a trustee and authorized signatory of the trusts' bank accounts, exercising control over financial decisions, utilization of funds, and day-to-day affairs. The ED further alleged that bogus scholarship applications containing details of fake or ineligible beneficiaries were submitted to obtain wrongful disbursal of government funds. The ASG also contended that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail despite proclamation proceedings and emphasized that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the larger conspiracy behind the alleged money laundering. Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shyam Divan, appearing for Rajnish Bansal, strongly opposed the ED's appeal. They submitted that although the ECIR had been registered in 2019, Bansal was first summoned only in 2024 and thereafter appeared before the ED on every occasion, fully cooperating with the investigation. The defence argued that the investigation became aggressive only after Bansal filed a complaint before the CBI alleging that a senior ED officer had demanded a ₹60 lakh bribe to spare him from arrest. Referring to the subsequent CBI FIR, arrest, and chargesheet against the concerned ED officer, Mukul Rohatgi argued that citizens who expose corruption within investigating agencies should not be penalized for doing so. It was further submitted that despite the filing of multiple prosecution complaints, Bansal had never been arrayed as an accused, making the sudden demand for custodial interrogation unjustified. Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution of certain ED officers in an unrelated bribery case could not overshadow the serious allegations of money laundering levelled against Rajnish Bansal. The Bench concluded that the High Court's reasoning was legally unsustainable and that the requirement of custodial interrogation had not been properly considered. Accordingly, the Court allowed the ED's appeal and set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice Bansal's right to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered independently on its own merits. Watch the complete analysis of the courtroom arguments advanced by Mukul Rohatgi, Shyam Divan, and ASG S.V. Raju, along with the Supreme Court's important observations in this high-profile PMLA case.