106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34114-2026 Date of Decision: June 19, 2026 Rahul …Pe++oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vikas Bairagi, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Anuj Garg, DAG, Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Prayer in this peon under Secon 482 BNSS is for grant of ancipatory bail in case FIR No.220 dated 15.05.2026, registered at Police Staon K.U.K, District Kurukshetra, under Secons 319, 213(18)(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (416, 179 and 120B of IPC). 2. As per the allegaons, the examinaon of 10th class was going on in Examinaon Centre Gurukul, Kurukshetra. On suspecng that a girl was appearing in place of the real candidate, the duty staff enquired the ma>er and found that one Sonia was impersonang as a candidate in place of Tannu. The ma>er was further enquired into and it was found that Partap and peoner – Rahul had contacted one Vinod Kumar to arrange a girl, who can appear for Tannu. It is only thereaAer that Sonia was arranged to impersonate Tannu to appear in the exam. It was also found that an amount of `4,000/- was received in the account of Vinod Kumar, having been transferred by the peoner. 3. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that peoner has been falsely implicated; that he is not the brother of Tannu as is observed in the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge; that he has no concern with Vinod Kumar or Partap. Learned counsel also submits that the peoner is ready to join invesgaon. SARITA RANI 2026.06.19 18:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-M-34114-2026 - 2 - 2026:PHHC:087733 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing on advance noce, has shown this Court the disclosure statement of co- accused – Vinod Kumar, who had been arrested and who disclosed that Rahul (peoner herein) and Partap had contacted him to arrange the girl to appear in the exam in place of Tannu. Besides, in case the peoner did not know Vinod Kumar or Partap, it is not forthcoming as to how the amount of `4,000/- was transferred in the account of Vinod Kumar by the peoner. 5. Having noced the aforesaid facts and circumstances, custodial interrogaon of the peoner may be necessary to probe the enre truth. It is not a fit case for grant of ancipatory bail. As such, the present peon is hereby dismissed. June 19, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.06.19 18:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order