ED attaches Rs 18.27 crore of Maa Saraswati Trust in scholarship case

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached assets worth about Rs 18.27 crore in the Himachal Pradesh post-matric scholarship case, through an attachment order dated 21 February 2025, according to the agency's record of the action. The attached property comprises three land parcels totalling roughly 125 bighas at Nahan in Sirmaur district, registered to Maa Saraswati Educational Trust, and two flats at Panchkula in Haryana registered to trustees Preeti Bansal and Richa Bansal. The trust runs the Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions (HGPI) at Kala Amb, Sirmaur. Across the wider matter the agency has reported freezes of about Rs 29 crore.

The action was taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, on the basis of ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019, which the ED registered on 19 July 2019. That money-laundering case flows from a predicate first information report, FIR 133/2018, later taken over by the CBI as RC 0962019S0002, into alleged irregularities in the disbursement of scholarships by the Himachal Pradesh Directorate of Higher Education.

A provisional attachment is an investigation-stage step. It freezes assets but does not transfer ownership, it must be confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, and it is separately appealable. It is not a finding of guilt. When the order was reported, the promoters could not be reached for a response, according to news accounts of the attachment.

How It Worked

According to the ED, the post-matric scholarship scheme was meant for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class students, and channelled central and state funds to institutions on behalf of enrolled students. The agency alleges that from 2012-13 onwards, institutions including HGPI presented non-existent or "ghost" students as verified claimants, uploading fabricated enrolment and identity details to the state's e-PASS verification portal to draw scholarship money for beneficiaries who had not studied there or had already left.

In its filings the ED puts HGPI's allegedly fraudulent claims at about Rs 14.49 crore across 1,729 false claims, and claims by the linked Apex Group of Professional Institutions (AGPI) at about Rs 3.80 crore across 636 claims, per the record placed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The agency alleges HGPI received about Rs 39.33 crore in scholarships between 2013-14 and 2017-18, of which it treats roughly Rs 17.29 crore as proceeds of crime.

The ED alleges those proceeds were routed to trust accounts and converted into land and residential property, which is the basis for the February 2025 attachment. Bank accounts were allegedly opened in students' names without their knowledge and used to receive disbursements, the agency has told the court.

The predicate investigation has itself drawn scrutiny. The CBI has arrested seven people in the case, including, notably, an ED officer posted at Shimla and a departmental DSP; the ED has separately arrested six. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

Who Lost Money

The people the scheme was meant to serve, SC, ST and OBC students entitled to post-matric scholarships, are the parties the record identifies as displaced, alongside the state exchequer that funded the disbursements. Where entitlements were allegedly claimed against ghost students, genuine students' quotas and the public money behind them were the loss, per the ED's case.

The headline figure for the wider Himachal scholarship irregularity has been reported at around Rs 200 crore across many institutions; that total should not be attributed to this one trust. The amounts specific to HGPI and AGPI in the ED's filings, about Rs 14.49 crore and Rs 3.80 crore in allegedly false claims, are the sums tied to this matter.

At the attachment stage no money has been returned to any student or to the state. An attachment freezes assets pending confirmation and any eventual trial; it does not by itself compensate anyone. Whether the state recovers value depends on confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority and the outcome of the prosecution.

Where It Stands Now

The case has moved well beyond the February 2025 attachment. On a supplementary prosecution complaint filed by the ED, the Special Judge (PMLA) at Shimla took cognizance on 28 July 2025 against Maa Saraswati Educational Trust and co-accused including Vikas Bansal, Preeti Bansal and the People Welfare Education Trust, court records show. Cognizance means the court has taken the complaint on file; it is not a conviction.

Several accused have since obtained relief from the Himachal Pradesh High Court. On 12 March 2026 the High Court granted bail to Vikas Bansal, Vice Chairman of HGPI and AGPI and a trustee, noting that with 107 witnesses and 63,749 pages of documents the trial would take long, and that prolonged incarceration engages Article 21. In November 2025 the court had granted anticipatory bail to HGPI chairman Rajnish Bansal, observing that the agency's conduct raised questions: it recorded that the ED remained largely inactive between 2019 and January 2025, shortly after the CBI arrested the ED's own investigating officer over an alleged demand of Rs 60 lakh.

The provisional attachment still requires confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, and any confirmation can be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. A provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What It Means

The matter shows how the anti-money-laundering process actually unfolds in stages: an ECIR, searches and arrests, a provisional attachment, confirmation by an Adjudicating Authority, a prosecution complaint, cognizance, and only then a trial that can run for years. Each stage carries a different legal weight, and an attachment early in that chain is far from a verdict.

It is also a reminder that grant and scholarship schemes are verified through documentation that can later be tested in court. For readers, the practical point is procedural literacy: an attachment freezes assets to preserve them for a possible later order, it does not decide guilt, and the people named retain the presumption of innocence throughout. The arrest of an investigating officer in the same case underlines why courts scrutinise the process itself, not only the accused.

For readers tracking how such orders end, the Oquilia enforcement archive records comparable PMLA attachments, including the Gauhati High Court's dismissal of CMJ University's challenge to an ED attachment and its order upholding the ED attachment in the Fama Marketing input-tax-credit case, where the courts tested each attachment on confirmation and appeal.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A provisional attachment, an ECIR and a prosecution complaint contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. As of now the PMLA court at Shimla has taken cognizance but no trial has concluded, and several accused have been granted bail.

What exactly did the ED do?

The ED passed a provisional attachment order dated 21 February 2025 freezing about Rs 18.27 crore of assets, land at Nahan and flats at Panchkula, linked to Maa Saraswati Educational Trust and its trustees, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019.

Is a provisional attachment the same as confiscation?

No. It freezes assets so they cannot be sold or moved while the case proceeds. It must be confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, and that confirmation can be appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. Ownership does not change unless a final order later directs it.

Have students or the state got the money back?

Not at this stage. An attachment preserves assets; it does not by itself compensate students or the exchequer. Any recovery depends on confirmation of the attachment and the outcome of the prosecution, both of which remain pending.

Why were some accused granted bail?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail citing the likely length of the trial, 107 witnesses and over 63,000 pages, and Article 21 protections, and, in one order, questions it raised about the investigation after the CBI arrested the ED's own investigating officer. Bail is not an acquittal.

Where can I read the official record?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court's bail orders in the case, which set out the ED's allegations, the ECIR and the amounts, are published on Indian Kanoon and are linked below.

This report is based on the Himachal Pradesh High Court order dated 12 March 2026 granting bail to Vikas Bansal and the court's November 2025 anticipatory-bail order in ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019, reviewed on 31 July 2026.