103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Surya Dev .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present :- Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.12 dated 05.02.2026, under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 10(1) of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 added later on, registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR has been lodged on the statement of namely, Yogesh Sehgal. It was alleged that he is working as State Head in EDUQUITY CAREER TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD., BANGLORE and the company conducts the examination of the central agency STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, Government of India. For conducting SSC papers, an examination centre has been set up at EXAM GENIUS ASSOCIATE, Vasundhara Garden, Village Mouli, District Panchkula. It was alleged that on 05.02.2026, the (MTS) Multi Tasking Staff 2026 examination was to be held at the above mentioned examination centre in the second shift from 01:00 PM to 2:30 PM. He received a call from Regional Co-ordinator Sh. Gagandeep Singh, at around 4:30 PM, that two boys have been caught cheating with electronic devices inside the examination centre. Both the candidates were giving the online examination inside the centre. At around 2:00 pm, the candidates appearing for the examination at the examination centre were checked. During checking, Aman and Sunil Kumar were found cheating with the help of one earbud each and a small walkie-talkie like electronic device, both of which had tape on them. After informing the officials of SSC NWR Chandigarh about this information, he reached at the examination centre at Village Mouli. Both the above boys are found cheating with the help of electronic communication devices in their possession illegally during the paper and were arrested on the spot. Request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. Thus, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, petitioner-Surya Dev was arrayed as accused on the basis of disclosure statement. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing counsel for both the sides, the same was declined vide order dated 08.04.2026. Hence, being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner runs a jewellery shop at Kurukshetra and is a regular income tax assessee. He has submitted that the petitioner is not even named in the FIR and has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, Aman, which is not admissible evidence. He has submitted that it is an admitted fact that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not present in Panchkula and that the device, as alleged, was handed over at Kurukshetra in front of Kurukshetra University. In any case, the said device has already been recovered from Aman. He has submitted that the device in question is a very common device, is not a prohibited item and is easily available online. Thus, false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He thus, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie case as alleged is made out against the petitioner and hence, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel has however, vehemently opposed the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the offence alleged in the present case is serious in nature. He has contended that the p