Gurgaon: Calling admission rackets a “bane to society” with “grave social ramifications”, a city court denied anticipatory bail to Syed Musharraf, a 55-year-old man accused of taking Rs 15 lakh on the promise of securing an MBBS seat.Additional sessions judge Nishant dismissed Musharraf’s plea. The court also rejected his explanation that the money was received as consultation charges, observing that such charges could not reasonably be so high for admission to an MBBS course, holding that the allegations against him were serious and warranted custodial interrogation.The case stems from a complaint by Joginder Singh, a social worker who contested the 2024 Vidhan Sabha elections. Singh alleged he paid Musharraf and an associate, Amargami, to secure a seat for his daughter, who was pursuing the course in Jaipur.According to the complaint, Musharraf received Rs 10 lakh through a bank transaction on June 24, 2025, and a further Rs 5 lakh in cash. Amargami allegedly received Rs 5 lakh through an account transfer on Aug 13, 2025. Singh said the accused stopped responding to his calls and refused to return the money after receiving it.An FIR was registered at Palam Vihar police station under sections 318(4) and 316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Police issued notices to both Musharraf and Amargami during the investigation, but neither joined the probe, the prosecution said. Singh produced WhatsApp chats and bank account statements in support of his complaint.Musharraf denied that the transactions were linked to any promise of a seat and claimed he had been falsely implicated. His counsel argued he was willing to join the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The state opposed the plea, arguing custodial interrogation was needed to recover the money and to “bust the racket involved in the admission process.”The court found that the WhatsApp chats prima facie showed money had changed hands, with references to the admission and an assurance to return the funds. It rejected the defence’s oral claim that the payments were consultation charges, noting that no record was produced to show Musharraf ran a consultancy or that the amount matched any prescribed fee.Holding that professional-course admission rackets have repeatedly come under scrutiny and that those involved “are required to be taken to task,” the court ruled that Musharraf was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
