IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Medhanshu Maurya

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana

....Respondent

Date of decision: 18.12.2025

Date of Uploading : 18.12.2025

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Naveen Arya, Advocate for the petitioner

(through Video Conference).

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.25 dated 15.02.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 7, 7-A, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station PGIMS,

Rohtak.

2. The essence of the allegations, as culled out from the FIR, are that the FIR in question was registered on the complaint of the Security Officer, UHS/PGIMS, Rohtak, alleging large-scale manipulation and tampering of answer sheets of MBBS examinations conducted by Pt. Bhagwat Dyal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak. Accordingly, an internal inquiry committee was constituted by the University, which submitted its report on 13.02.2025. The inquiry report named 24 students,

including the present petitioner and 17 officials/employees of the Examination Branch and associated service providers as being involved in the alleged examination scam. The inquiry committee, upon verification of records of selected candidates, concluded that the answer sheets had been tampered and manipulated. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the present FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present case. He has further iterated that the petitioner is a young MBBS student with no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of an internal inquiry report which per se is inadmissible. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was merely a candidate appearing in the examination and has no access to the examination branch, record room or evaluation process. Learned counsel has further submitted that no recovery of any incriminating article has been effected from the petitioner and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence. Learned counsel has further submitted that several co-accused (i.e. officials and intermediaries) have already been granted the concession of bail and, therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been wrongly applied to a student. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant petition is entreated for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the available record of the case.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, relevant whereof reads as under:

“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay S