Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040010482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/91/2025 Ajay and 11 Ors Son of Shri Ramkumar, resident of Rohtak Road, Visham Barnagar, PO Rohtak Road Jind, PS Jind Sadar, Jind District, Haryana 126102 2: Jaideep Kumar Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Kuldeep Singh resident of Near Hansi Road Human Mandir VPO Sisai Kalirawan PO Sisai Kalirawan PS Hansi Sadar Hisar District Haryana. 125049 3: Mandeep Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Ishwar resident of House No. 1156 Pala Bagar VPO Pabra PO Pabra PS Barwala Hisar District Haryana 125112 4: Sahil Age: Occupation : Son of Sudhir Kumar resident of VPO Khatkar Page No.# 2/9 PO Uchana PS Uchana Jind District Haryana 5: Manish Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Satyvir resident of Village Seka Post Mandhana PO Mandhana PS Narnaul Sadar Mahendragarh District Haryana. 123001 6: Sahil Yadav Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Anoop Singh resident of Village Seka Tehsil Narnaul PO Mandhana PS Narnaul Sadar Mahendragarh District Haryana 123001 7: Sachin Age: Occupation : Son of Dilbag resident of House No.182 Mitathal PO Mithathal PS Bhiwani Sadar Bhiwani District Haryana 127031 8: Ankit Yadav Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Umed Singh resident of Village Nehru Nagar Tehsil Nangal Chaudhry PO Bhungarka PS Nangal Chaudhry Mahendragarh District Haryana 123023 9: Ravi Page No.# 3/9 Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jaipal resident of VPO Bass Badshahpur Tehsil Bass PO and PS Bass Hissar District Haryana 10: Naseeb Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Randhir Singh resident of VPO Banwasa Tehsil Gohana PO Banwasa PS Baroda Panipat District Haryana 131304 11: Ashish Yadav Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Shaitan Singh resident of 93 Gali No.1 Rajanagar Part 02 Palam colony PO Raj Nagar Part II PS Palam New Delhi 110077 12: Smti Pooja Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Jogender resident of VPO Kharainti Julana Tehsil PO Garhwali PS Julana Jind District Haryan VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Page No.# 4/9 Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajesh Sonar, Meenakshi Jerang,M Basar,Khyoda Yayo,Michi Khambo,Binny Nyaruce,R Taku Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. R Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. This is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Naharlagun PS Case No. 11/2025 registered under Section 418/468/471/120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, 2. The fact of the present case is that an FIR was lodged on 16th January, 2025 by the Assistant Director, Staff Selection Commission (NER) stating inter alia that an examination was conducted for appointment to posts of Multi- Tasking (Non-Technical) staff and Havildar during September, 2023 at designated examination centre in the district of Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh and that during the said examination various irregularities and malpractices Page No.# 5/9 were alleged to have been committed by the petitioners who appeared in the said exam. It was further stated in the FIR that after declaration of the results the Commission found out that the petitioners secured very high marks and 8 of them topped the merit list and that by examining the CC TV footage, and answer lock details of the petitioner, some suspicion arose about malpractices. It was also stated that the petitioners were found frequently visiting the toilet during the exam period by taking unusually long time and that they were found answering without rough sheets and further that they had answered 30 to 50 questions within 2 to 3 minutes. It was further stated that the correspondence and permanent addresses of the candidates/petitioners were found not matching with each other. The candidates were found giving address of Haryana during the examination and when they were called for document verification, they mentioned Arunachal Pradesh as their permanent address and that they had failed to provide their documents in support of their permanent address and that the said conduct demonstrated malpractices on their part. They were also further stated to have not corrected their addresses subsequently and as such it was alleged that there was a well organised conspiracy involving the petitioners and further that there are involvement of external collaborators undermining the integrity of the examination process. The police on receipt of the FIR registered the same under Section 418/468/471/120B read with Section 34 IPC. Page No.# 6/9 3. Mr. R Sonar submitted before this Court that bare reading of the contents of the FIR reveals that none of the offence mentioned in the FIR were committed by petitioners. He stated that there is no ingredients of forgery mentioned in the FIR. He stated that the only allegations mentioned in the FIR are that the petitioners were found visiting the wash rooms multiple times and that they did not used rough sheets and that they answered the questions very fast and further that they had given wrong addresses. He also stated that the FIR was lodged only on suspicion that the petitioners had committed the said offences. He further stated that all the offences under which the FIR was registered were bailable offences except Section 468 IPC which again entails a punishment of not more than 7 years. He as such submitted that the authorities are duty bound to serve a notice under Section 41A CrPC which the authorities have not complied with. To substantiate his arguments, he placed the decision delivered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein it was stated that if in cases where notice under Section 41A CrPC is not served, the bail has to be enlarged to the accused person. 4. On the other hand, Ms. T Jini, Addl. Public Prosecutor had submitted that during the investigation it was found that the petitioners had forged the signature of the Executive Magistrate which is further established by the fact Page No.# 7/9 that the said Executive Magistrate had joined much later that is on December, 2023 and that her signature appeared in the documents prepared during April, 2023. She further stated that the said Executive Magistrate is yet to be examined to bring out the true facts. She also stated that the similar case has been registered at Itanagar Police Station wherein the modus operandi of the petitioners are similar in nature and that the petitioners had given wrong address and further that they procured Inner Line Permit fraudulently and as such, she prays no bail should be given to the petitioners. 5. I have heard the parties and I have gone through the records, including the Case Diary. 6. The offences which are alleged against the petitioners in the FIR were as follows; (a) that they by using unfair practices secured very high marks (b) they were found frequently visiting the toilets during exam period by taking unusually long time (c) they did not use rough sheets (d) they had answered 30 to 50 questions within 2 to 3 minutes (e) no other candidates have displayed such speed (f) the petitioners have given different addresses (g) a petitioners did not correct their addresses in spite of opportunities given, and (h) there is involvement of external collaborators in the offence. On the basis of this allegations the informant stated that the conduct of the petitioners raises Page No.# 8/9 suspicion. 7. The provisions mentioned in the FIR that the petitioners cheated, forged, used forged document, committed breach of trust, attempted to commit offence or entered into a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of common intention is not revealed from a plain reading of the FIR. Further, it is clearly stated in the FIR that the allegations were raised only on suspicion. It is also noticed that the FIR is lodged on 16th January 2025 whereas the examination was held during September 2023 demonstrating that there is a big delay. It is further noticed from the Case Diary that the documents in respect of all the accused persons were provided by the complainant and the same were verified and checked. Furthermore, notices under Section 41A CrPC was also not served upon the petitioners. It is also not clear from the Case Diary as to why the executive Magistrate, whose signature is stated to have been forged by petitioners, was not examined till date. 8. In view of the above, this Court enlarges the petitioners Nos. 1 to 12 on pre-arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with two sureties, one being a local inhabitant in the State of Arunachal Pradesh produced by each of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the I.O, P.S Naharlagun. The bail is however subjected to the following conditions: Page No.# 9/9 1. They will appear before the I.O within 10 days from the receipt of the order and give their statement. 2. They will submit documents such as Aadhar card, showing their addresses to the I.O. 3. They will appear before the I.O on the first week of every month. 4. They will not leave the jurisdiction of the Police Station, Naharlagun without the permission of the I.O. 5. They will not hamper or tamper with the evidence or influence any of the witnesses connected with the case. 6. They will fully cooperate with the Police in the investigation of the case. 9. With this observation, this application is disposed off. 10. It is further directed that the findings in this Order will have no bearing in other proceedings. JUDGE Comparing Assistant