2025:HHC:20307 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) Nos. 1314, 1315, 1316, 1318 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.06.2025 Date of Decision: 28.06.2025 1. Cr. MP (M) No. 1314 of 2025 Mohit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 2. Cr. MP (M) No. 1315 of 2025 Shubham ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No.1316 of 2025 Manish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 4. Cr.MP(M) No.1318 of 2025 Gaurav . ..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. 2 2025:HHC:20307 Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Prantap Sharma, Advocate in all the petitions. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with HC Parma Nand No. 63, IO P.P. Lakkar Bazar, P.S. Sadar, Shimla in all petitons Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Nothing rankles more in the human heart more than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness, we can put up with. But injustice makes us want to pull things down. (Justice Brennan). Since all the bail petitions have arisen out of the same F.I.R., therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 41 of 2025, dated 18.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 10 and 11 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, at Police Station Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3 2025:HHC:20307 3. It has been asserted that petitioners are falsely implicated in the F.I.R. with the allegations of use of electronic devices in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalya (JNV) examination held on 18.05.2025 at Chapslee School, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioners are students and belong to respectable families. The electronic devices have already been seized. The petitioners joined the investigation and cooperated with the Investigating Agency. There is no material to connect the petitioners with the commission of a crime. They would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. Hence, the present petitions. 4. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that Chapslee School was a designated centre for the JNV Selection Test conducted on 18.05.2025. Seven candidates, Mohit, Aashish, Manish Kumar, Gaurav, Ritu, Shubam and Mohit were found with unauthorised electronic devices. The electronic devices were recovered from Mohit and Aashish at the time of their frisking at the entry gate, and they were not permitted to enter the examination room. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. They revealed during the interrogation that their father had entered into a deal to get 4 2025:HHC:20307 the examination cleared. An amount of ₹2/2.50 Lakhs was to be paid in case of success. The police obtained call detail records, and some records are yet to be obtained. The petitioners were part of an organised crime syndicate, and similar F.I.R.s have been registered in other States. The name of the handler and service provider is to be ascertained. The petitioners can influence the investigation. Hence, the status report. 5. I have heard Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions and Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State in all the petitions. 6. Mr. Parantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are students and they were falsely implicated. They have nothing to do with the commission of a crime. Their future would be compromised by their continuous detention. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2025: HHC 613. 5 2025:HHC:20307 7. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State in all the petitions submitted that the petitioners are part of an Organised Crime Syndicate. They indulged in unfair practices during the examination to gain an unfair advantage over the other candidates. Releasing the petitioners on bail would send a wrong signal to the society and would encourage malpractices in the examination. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the 6 2025:HHC:20307 courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 10. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:- “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest 7 2025:HHC:20307 of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; 8 2025:HHC:20307 reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 12. The present petitions are to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioners were found in possession of Bluetooth devices and SIMS, which fall within the definition of communication devices. These devices were being used to adopt unfair practices during the examination to gain an unfair advantage over the hardworking students. The legislature has provided stringent punishment to instil confidence in the public examination, and this confidence can be compromised if such offences are treated lightly. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 518, that a 9 2025:HHC:20307 person cheating in a public examination is not entitled to bail. It was observed: “10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process, with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instils and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions are the ones who have deservedly been installed in such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive. 11. Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with stands proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law that the respondent-accused has indeed not committed any crime in law.” 14. It was laid down by the Delhi High Court in Vedpal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1905, that cheating the government examination undermines the principles of meritocracy and can lead to the recruitment of incompetent or 10 2025:HHC:20307 unqualified individuals in key government positions. It was observed: - “9. While adjudicating the present bail application, this Court is of the opinion that when individuals resort to dishonest means to obtain leaked examination papers or cheat during exams, it not only undermines the merit- based selection process but also erodes public trust in the fair and transparent examination system. 10. Moreover, cheating in government exams can have far-reaching consequences for society as a whole. It can lead to the recruitment of incompetent or unqualified individuals in key government positions, which can have detrimental effects on public service delivery, governance, and overall development. 11. Furthermore, cheating in government exams undermines the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunities, which are essential for fostering social mobility and ensuring fairness in society. It perpetuates inequalities by favouring those who can afford to pay for leaked exam papers or engage in fraudulent activities, while disadvantaging those who rely on their hard work and merit to succeed. The acts of cheating in examinations thus must be dealt with a stern hand, as their effects are not limited to an individual but impact society as a whole. In the present case, the allegations against the accused persons are serious in nature since they have made the prospective candidates believe that they have the leaked question papers for the examination they are sitting for and have sold them the same on payment of lakhs of rupees. The recovery is effected from them corroborates prima facie the statements of the victims and the prosecution.” 15. In the present case, the selection was being held for the post of teachers in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. Teachers 11 2025:HHC:20307 are the nation builders, and people who enter the profession of teaching based on cheating or manipulation of the examination cannot be a model for future generations. Therefore, the nature of the crime is such that the petitioners cannot be released on bail at this stage. Releasing them on bail will foster a brooding sense of injustice upon the candidates, who have spent years together for preparing for the examination, simply to be defeated by cheating and malpractices. This compromises the rule of law and has a severe impact on society. 16. It was submitted that the petitioners have a bright future with them; they will come into contact with hardened criminals, and they should be given a chance to reform themselves. The petitioners cannot take shelter behind the plea of their being students when they had indulged in unfair practices to secure a public job for themselves. They tried to compromise the selection to the public post by the payment of money. Releasing them on bail will not only encourage them but will provide an incentive to similarly minded persons to commit similar crimes in future, and this would defeat the purpose of enacting the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be released on bail on the 12 2025:HHC:20307 ground that they happened to be students and should be given a chance to reform themselves. They did not commit the crime on the spur of the moment but after due deliberations, hoping for a shortcut to success. 17. Consequently, the present petitions fail, and the same are dismissed. 18. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th June, 2025 (ravinder)