IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P.(M) No.2838 of 2025

Reserved on: 09.01.2026

Decided on: 16.1.2026

Aalok Sharma ...…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

i The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking

pre-arrest bail in FI.R. No.14/2025 dated 18.05.2025, registered at Police Station New Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 319(2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It has been asserted that the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the above mentioned F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. As per the prosecution's story, a candidate bearing Roll

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No

No. 111231679 appeared in the Lab Assistant examination at DAV Public School, Sector-4, New Shimla. The photographs o.n the Aadhar card and the admit card were different and the signatures also did not tally. Hence, the matHter was reported to the police, and Jatin Kumar was apprehended on the spot. The petitioner was not present at the examination centre on 18.05.2025. The petitioner is being implicated based upon the presumption of conspiracy. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R are punishable with imprisonment upto 07 years, and unnecessary arrest of a person is to be avoided as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar versus C BI, 2021(10) SCC 773. The co-accused has been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court wrongly applied the provisions of the “Public Examinations” (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The examination being conducted in the present case did not fall within the definition of a public examination. The petitioner is the sole caretaker of his aged and ailing father. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the examination of the Lab Assistant was being conducted at DAV Public School, New Shimla, on 18.05.2025.

Roll Number 111231679 was issued to Aalok Sharma (pr.esent petitioner). The photograph in the Aadhar card and the admit card, as well as the signatures, were differeHnt. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the F.I.R. The police arrested the person who identified himself as Jatin Kumar. The police also checked the CCTV footage and found that Jatin Kumar had appeared in place of the petitioner in the examination. The petitioner absconded and did not appear before the police despite the repeated directions issued to his mother. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him to the commission of a crime. The learned Trial Court wrongly invoked the provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The offence under Sections 318(4) & 319(2) is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, and the petitioner is entitled to bail. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petition.er be released on bail.

6. Mr Jatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State, submitted that Jatin Sharma had impersonated the petitioner. He had documents issued to the petitioner, which he could not have possessed without the petitioner’s complicity. These circumstances prima facie show