IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Ashish - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
Bail Application No. 143 of 2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 420/467/120-B IPC, Section 66D of the IT act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence collected during the investigation, the role of the petitioner in helping a student to memorize questions, and the possession of the flat by the petitioner. The court considered the clean past antecedents of the petitioner and granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420/467/120-B IPC and Section 66D of the IT act. The prosecution alleged fraudulent practices in the Joint Entrance Examination (Mains) 2021 and implicated the petitioner in helping students to memorize questions.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the evidence collected during the investigation and the role of the petitioner, noting that the petitioner had no substantive role in alluring parents or taking an active part at the examination centers. The court also took into account the clean past antecedents of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering the allegations of fraudulent practices in the examination and the evidence collected during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the lack of substantive role in the alleged fraudulent practices, clean past antecedents, and the willingness to join the investigation.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, including providing a personal bond, providing a working mobile number, not leaving the NCT of Delhi without prior permission, and not engaging in any criminal or illegal activities during the bail period.
JUDGMENT
anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - This is an application under Section 438 Cr.PC filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case No. RC-DaI-2021-a-0032 registered under Sections 420/467/120-B IPC read with Section 66D of the IT act.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, on the basis of source information, the present FIR/RC was registered, wherein it was stated that National Testing agency (NTa), an autonomous testing organization is entrusted by the Government of India with the task of conducting free and fair examinations for admission to premier higher education institutions. One of such examinations is Joint Entrance Examination (Mains) conducted for admission to Undergraduate Engineering Programs (B.E/B. Tech). The fourth session of JEE (Mains), 2021 in Computer Based Test (CBT) was conducted on 26th, 27th, 31st august and 1st and 2nd September, 2021 at different centers located in major cities throughout the country and abroad.
It is further the case of prosecution that V. Mani Tripathi, Siddharth Krishna and Govind Vaarshney were the directors/signatories of M/s affinity Education Pvt. Ltd. having its office at NOIDa, Gautam Budh Nagar. also one Ms. Seema was the counselor of admission for Delhi/NCR and Ms. anjuman Dawoodani was the counselor of admission for Maharashtra. Both the abovementioned persons were assisting V. Mani Tripathi, Siddharth Krishna and Govind Varshenen in soliciting and managing admission in top NITs and reputed engineering colleges by adopting fraudulent means and unfair practices.
It is further alleged that Rs.10-15 lacs were being demanded from the parents of aspiring students for which they were asked to deposit Post Dated Cheques for an assured admission. The user ID and password of candidates appearing for examination were also collected for getting desired examination centers. The modus operandi was that above persons would arrange a solver sitting at remote location for solving the questions which were displayed on the computer terminal allotted to the candidates. The centre supervisor, who would access to the computer network, was also a part of fraudulent act.
The above persons are stated to have connived with the supervisor of JEE (Mains), 2021, Session-4 exam centres at Sonipat and made necessary arrangements for fraudulent practices. During investigation, 3-4 candidates alleged that were given solved question paper several hours prior to the exam and were taken to some flat at Rohini in the wee-hours and were given solved question papers to memorize, which came in the exam. The investigation team was led to Flat No. 546, Paradise apartments, Sector-18, Rohini. The owner of the said flat disclosed that the same was rented to the petitioner ashish and Sunil (a relative of ashish) who were residents of Rohini. The owner of the flat further informed that he had requested one of his colleagues to help in renting out of the flat and she had contacted alka Sharma, a property dealer of the locality and given her keys for purpose of renting the property. The petitioner and co-accused Sunil who were known to alka Sharma took the flat on rent from her saying that a lady namely SI Priyanka Dagar, whose flat in the same apartment was under renovation, required the flat for a period of three months. SI Priyanka Dagar stated that the flat was under renovation and she had placed some of her articles in the said flat and thereafter removed the same. Both alka Sharma as well as SI Priyanka Dagar stated that the flat remained in possession of the petitioner and co-accused Sunil. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and co-accused Sunil had helped the aspirants in memorizing the question papers and the identity of evidence has been withheld to maintain secrecy of investigation. The petitioner and co-accused Sunil are also stated to be operating online examination centres i.e. Genex Online Examination Centre and Impulse Online Exam Centre and are
Granting anticipatory bail based on the lack of substantive role in the alleged fraudulent practices, clean past antecedents, and willingness to join the investigation.
Anticipatory bail may be granted when the accused has clean past antecedents and lacks direct evidence connecting them to the alleged crime.
The court reaffirms that anticipatory bail is not to be granted where there is substantial evidence indicating involvement in serious offences affecting societal interests.
The court dismissed anticipatory bail petitions due to the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of witness tampering.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.