RANCHI, India, July 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jun 18:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 195 of 2024 for alleged offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001. The case is presently pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Ranchi.
3. As per the first information report, it has been alleged that NEET 2024 exam was being conducted at D.P.S., Ranchi. During exam, informant received instructions over phone from N.T.A. Member Siddharth Kumar and Mr. Khan that biometrics of two candidates having Roll No.2603210257 and Roll No.2603210484 be re-verified. Biometric of Amish Panigrahi did not match whereas the second candidate Vivekanand Mahapatra confessed that he is appearing for another candidate. Both of them gave their respective original details, whose original names were Vikas and Jitendra Saini.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other accused persons have not named the petitioner, thus, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no material to implicate this petitioner as he has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. During course of argument, he further submits that the other accused person came to know that the petitioner is not appearing in NEET Exam and only for the reasons best known to him, in place of this petitioner he had appeared, which the petitioner had no knowledge. The said other accused Jitendra Saini had appeared in place of this petitioner only to check his caliber and check his performance.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in place of this petitioner, one Jitendra Saini had appeared in NEET Examination and this petitioner is the direct beneficiary. Further, he submits that there is a racket, which is operating in this manner and thus, unless the petitioner is questioned and unless proper interrogation is made, larger conspiracy cannot be unearthed. In that view, it is necessary to take the petitioner in custody.
6. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the available records. I find that for writing the NEET Examination 2024 in the premises of the school of the informant, in place of the original candidates, i.e., this petitioner, the other accused Jitendra Saini had appeared. The fact that the petitioner has not appeared in the examination and someone else had appeared is established during investigation. This clearly suggests that ultimate beneficiary would have been the petitioner, if this fact would not have been detected. In fact, one Jitendra Saini was appearing on behalf of this petitioner in the NEET Exam. Also from the first information report, it is clear that both the imposters who were writing exam in place of the petitioner and another were from Rajasthan. This shows large scale conspiracy and the preplanned manner of offence, how cheating and forgery is done, to crack NEET, which is a premiere examination of the country.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, unless the petitioner is taken in custody and proper interrogation and investigation is conducted, large scale of conspiracy cannot be unearthed. Thus, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
8. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
