206 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.39173 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.01.2026 Jagroop Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.168, dated 02.10.2022, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Division No.6, District Jalandhar.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Saurabh Kansal, authorized representative of firm M/s Pearsons India Education Private Limited. It was alleged that the company was engaged in business of conducting various computer based tests across the globe, including but not limited to, academic admissions, IT, Government and Licences examination for various private and government organizations. It was alleged that on 03.06.2022, the company, vide e-mail from Tipster, received an information with respect to irregularities at test centre at Model Town and thereafter, it conducted review of tests delivered at Centre and found that eight persons, including the petitioner, namely Jagroop Singh, colluded with a Test Center Administrator (TA), namely Sahil Joshi, to conduct proxy examinations at the test center on different dates, thereby defrauding and cheating the complainant by swapping candidates during the examination. On filing the complaint in the present case, the investigation was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Jalandhar and even opinion from DA\Legal was obtained and then the FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for the grant of anticipatory bail. However, learned trial Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the same vide order dated 02.08.2023. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner duly appeared in Pearson Test of English on 11.06.2022 at 07:15 p.m. and his passport was duly checked and he was allowed to sit at workstation No.4, which is evident from the CCTV footage, however, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he was to sit at workstation No.3, but he was allowed to sit at workstation No.4, which was the seat of Vicky Kumar Singla. It is submitted that the petitioner sat on that workstation as told by the Test Administrator. He submits that neither the petitioner ever met the Test Administrator nor he has any relation with Vicky Kumar Singla. He submits that the entire test conducted by the company is monitored ‘live’ by the company through access from an undisclosed location. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been made scapegoat in the present case and he has no role to play in the alleged offence. He further submits that all the accused except the present petitioner, have already been granted regular bail. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and thus, in the overall facts and circumstances, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently controverted the contentions raised by counsel for t