Dixit Kantibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Dixit Kantibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2026

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.RA/936/2025                                          ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                     SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 936 of 2025

                      ==========================================================
                                                     DIXIT KANTIBHAI PATEL
                                                             Versus
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR JIGNESH R MODI(11359) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR. JUGAL BHARAT CHAUHAN(16375) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                              Date : 17/04/2026

                                                                   ORDER

1. The applicant is read as accused no.6 in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. The challenge is given to the order passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court No.7, City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. The order dated 30.05.2025 below Exh.9 in CBI Case Nos.14 and 20 of 2024 rejected the application, moved under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein the prayer was made to discharge the applicant from the charges. The FIR was registered on 05.05.2024 as 11207024240491/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C') and Section 7 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the 'PC Act') against three accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined

2. In the said FIR, the present applicant was not named as an accused. During the course of investigation by the State agency, two other persons were arraigned as accused. Thereafter by a notification dated 23.06.2024 issued by the State Government, the investigation of the offence was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation and the offence came to be re-registered as CBI F.I.R RC2212024E0005 dated 23.06.2024 at EO-III branch, CBI New Delhi.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Vikas Nair along with learned Advocate Mr. Jignesh Modi submitted that even in that FIR filed by the CBI, the applicant was not named in the FIR nor even any remote allegations were raised against the applicant, however, subsequently, on 29.06.2024, he was arrested and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed qua five accused on 07.08.2024. Advocate Mr. Nair submitted that the charge- sheet makes mere reference of the applicant without any material connecting the applicant in any of the offences as alleged and the sections so invoked.

3.1 It is submitted by advocate Mr. Nair that it is by the supplementary charge-sheet dated 25.09.2024, the applicant came to be charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 477A, 511, 201, 120-B of IPC and Sections 7(a), 7A, 8 and 12 of the PC Act. Advocate Mr. Nair submitted that the CBI had no reason to arrest the applicant where the State Agency had not found any case against the present applicant. Merely relying on the statement of one - Vishnu Sharma with Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined an additional statement of Ms. Ketki Vikas Patel, it cannot be stated that the applicant was involved in any of the alleged offences. It is the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Nair referring to the statement of Mr. Vishnu Sharma and Ms. Ketki Patelin that the statement does not reflect any conspiracy of the present applicant with other co-accused, as the present applicant was the trustee of Jay Jalaram International School (JJIS, Godhra). It is submitted by advocate Mr. Nair that Purshottam Sharma was appointee by the Central Authority and who had conducted the NEET UG 2024 examination and subsequently, Tushar Rajnikant Bhatt was appointed as a Deputy Centre Superintendent of the NTA. Advocate Mr. Nair stated that Purshottam Sharma was appointed being a Principal of Jay Jalaram School, Godhra by the NTA as a City Co-ordinator for the Godhra Centre (Gujarat State) and the remuneration to Purshottam Sharma as well as Tushar Bhatt would be paid by the authority conducting the NEET examination.

3.2 It is the submission of advocate Mr. Nair that the present applicant being the trustee of two schools would have no role to play in the appointment of the City Co-ordinator nor in the appointment of Deputy Centre Superintendent of the NTA. The allegation, therefore, of any corruption would not bind this applicant as a trustee and thus, stated that since no conspiracy could be gathered from the statement of Vishnu Sharma as well as statement of Ketki Patel and when no role comes out from the statement, the applicant is required to be Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined discharged from the case. Advocate Mr. Nair has placed reliance on the judgments of Dilawar Banu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 564), Yogesh vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2008 SC 2991) and had made special emphasis on the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (2025 INSC 725).

4. Per contra, Special Counsel for the CBI, Mr. R.C. Kodekar relying on the reply filed and, observations made by the trial court Judge submitted that the investigation revealed the major role played by the present applicant in conspiracy with other co-accused. The investigation established that the applicant as A-6 is the Chairman of Jay Jalaram Education Trust and the said education trust runs two schools, no.1 Jay Jalaram School, at Godhra and no.2 Jay Jalaram International School, at Kheda.

5. Advocate Mr. Kodekar stated that Purshottam Sharma, A-5 was the Principal of Jay Jalaram School, at Godhra and was appointed by NTA as City Co-ordinator of the Gujarat Centre at Gujarat State and was given remuneration for the purpose. He was performing the duty as public servant and was entrusted with the work to conduct the NEET UG 2024 Examination in a fair, impartial and in a transparent manner. Advocate Mr. Kodekar stated that the said accused Purshottam Sharma (A5) in turn appointed Tushar Bhatt (A1) as Deputy Centre Superintendent of the NTA, who was also drawing remuneration from NTA to carry out the work relating to the Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined examination.

5.1 Advocate Mr. Kodekar stated that the investigation revealed that the present applicant as A6, Purshottam Sharma as A5 and Tushar Bhatt as A1, has conspired with other co- accused to manipulate the answers in OMR sheets of certain candidates to ensure that they received high marks in examination in exchange of large sum of money. Thus, advocate Mr. Kodekar submitted that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy Tushar Bhatt (A1), collided with the private persons Parashuram Bindnath Roy (A2), Arif Noor Mohammad Vorah (A3) and Vibhor Umeshwar Prasad Singh Anand (A4) to arrange candidates. These candidates were made to fill out/change their application forms with present addresses in Panchmahal/Vadodara, select Godhra as their exam center, and choose Gujarati as the medium of examination.

5.2 Advocate Mr. Kodekar stated that the candidates were assured that correct answers would be filled in their OMR sheets by the accused persons after the examination, ensuring good marks opening their chance to study MBBS in India or abroad. They, thus, manipulated the examination system and cheated the NTA and students at large who appeared in the examination, for personal gain and to grant undue benefit to the candidates.

6. Referring to the statement of Vishnu Sharma, advocate Mr. Kodekar stated that the role of the present applicant as a trustee and his influence and conspiracy gets very much clear Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined and the whole statement, if read in totality, would prove the meeting of minds of all the accused. Advocate Mr. Kodekar while referring to the statement stated that Tushar Bhatt was actually running tuition classes who was appointed by Purshottam Sharma, the principal of the school run by the applicant as a trustee. The statement of Vishnu Sharma states that present applicant Dixit Patel was introduced by Tushar Bhatt in 2023, at that relevant time as teacher in the school of JJIS and Tushar Bhatt was introduced to the witness by his friend Vikas in 2021 who was working in the coaching centre of Tushar Bhatt. The said Vikas was working in the coaching centre of Tushar Bhatt in Godhra.

6.1 Advocate Mr. Kodekar stated that the telephonic conversations were made by the witness Vishnu Sharma with Vikas and who had assured that Tushar Bhatt has made settings to facilitate the selection in NEET UG.

7. Both the advocates on record have referred to the statements recorded of the witnesses. The role of the present applicant that gets reflected by the statement of Vishnu Sharma would say that he had meeting with the present applicant and informed that it was about three of his cousin sisters and he had sent six names to Tushar Bhatt who were interested in admission. Dixit Patel informed the witness that he could arrange for selection for any two in the NEET UG 2023, but as Vishnu Sharma insisted for all the three cousins, the present applicant Dixit Patel had asked for Rs.10,00,000/-

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined in advance per candidate and Vishnu Sharma was told to further coordinate with Tushar Bhatt in the future. According to the statement of Vishnu Sharma, he had handed over Rs.20,00,000/- to Tushar Bhatt on the day of NEET examination, UG 2023 and the further statement also records that Vishnu Sharma was also made an invigilator in JJIS, Padal branch in NEET UG 2023 for specially disabled persons, for two to three hours before NEET UG 2023 exam. He had sent his photograph to Tushar Bhatt and after consulting Dixit Patel, Vishnu Sharma was made the invigilator.

7.1 The statement of Vishnu Sharma further reflects to the mode of unfair practices adopted and his affirming of the payment of money. He also stated that after the examination, Tushar Bhatt has insisted for the remaining Rs.25,00,000/- stating that the work had been done, while the witness wanted to wait for the result and thus, according to his statement, after the results were declared, marks of Sonu Sharma and Akshita Sharma were increased but they could not secure the selection in the Government Medical College. Hence, he did not paid remaining amount and according to statement of Vishnu Sharma, the original amount which he had paid of Rs.20,000,00/- were also not returned back to him. Further, the statement of Vishnu Sharma deals with the conversation of Tushar Bhatt and Dixit Patel with regard to the payment of the money to be paid in blank cheque or Rs.50,00,000/- advance as instructed by the present applicant.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined 7.2 The statements of the students were also recorded confirming the amount paid and received. The second statement is of Ms. Ketki Patel dated 06.09.2024, the witness was also a principal of Primary Section, Gujarat Medium, Jay Jalaram Prvadi School, Godhra and as per her statement, she was asked about NEET UG 2023 examination held in Jay Jalaram School and at that time too, Purshottam Sharma was a City Co-ordinator and she was the Centre Superintendent, while Tushar Bhatt was Deputy Centre Superintendent. As per her statement, before the details of the schools were filled up and submitted with NTA for the examination of 2024, the matter was discussed between herself, Purshottam Sharma and the present applicant Dixit Patel and Purshottam Sharma has suggested the name of Tushar Bhatt as Deputy Centre Superintendent at Jay Jalaram School. Inspite of her objection, the present applicant agreed to it.

8. In the case of Dilawar Banu Kurane (supra), reliance was placed on the para 12 and 13 by learned Advocate Mr. Nair, which is reproduced here in under:

"12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section227 of the Cr.PC, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Cr.PC, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad possibilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (See Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. MANU/SC/0414/1978 1979CriLJ154.).

13. As stated earlier, neither the Special Judge nor the High Court considered the materials on records while framing charge and there was no application of mind and the Special judge merely acted as apost office. All the materials produced by the prosecution against the accused were duly considered by the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. In coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case rests upon flimsy foundation and it is quite possible that the changes of a conviction are bleak, the High Court recorded as follows:

"Without in any way prejudging the issue I must say that the vital content of the prosecution case seems somewhat amazing. An association of students Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined provides money to an examinee to get his marks. This is said to have been done and the answer-books attached. The First Information Report is given some seven days after this incident. Information of the offence is conveyed to a police station and yet investigation by the A.C.B. is taken up as late as March 1987. Nothing incriminating has been found with the Petitioner." "

9. In Yogesh (supra), the reliance was placed on paras 15, 17, 18, 20 and 23, which are reproduced here-in-under:

"15. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused"

appearing in the section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. (See State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 :

1977 SCC (Cri) 533] and Prafulla Kumar Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] .)

17. Section 120-A IPC defines criminal conspiracy. The section reads as under:

"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.-- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--

(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."

18. The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. Yet, as observed by this Court in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [(1980) 2 SCC 465 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 493] a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators. Therefore, the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such inference is possible.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined

20. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1988) 3 SCC 609 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 711] the gist of the offence of the conspiracy has been brought out succinctly in the following words [Ed.: Quoted from Russell on Crime (12th Edn., Vol. I, p. 202).] : (SCC p. 731, para

271) "271. ... 'The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough.' "

23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement."

10. In P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra), specific emphasis was laid down on para 4, 8, 10 of paragraph 53, which have been reproduced here-in-under:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined "(iv). Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused.

(viii). Where the police statement of the accused is an exculpatory statement i.e., it is neither a confession nor an admission, the statement being one Under Section 161, would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 of the Cr.PC, and the same may be used only for the very limited purpose provided in the proviso for the purpose of contradiction or re- examination of such accused person alone, as held in Mahabir Mandal (supra). Even if such exculpatory statement of one accused, implicates another co-accused, the same cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused, as there can be no credibility attached to an exculpatory statement of an accused implicating another co-accused, more particularly because it is neither required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the co- accused, the same cannot be tested by cross- examination and the exculpatory nature of such statement militates against the foundational principle that permits taking into consideration a statement of one accused person against another co-accused as explained in Bhuboni Sahu (supra), i.e., 'when Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined a person admits guilt to its fullest extent either to a certain incriminating fact or substantially all the facts which constitute the offence, and in doing so exposes himself and in the process other co-accused persons to the pain and penalties provided for the guilt, there exists a sincerity and semblance of sanction for the truthfulness of such statement.'

(x) Before the court looks into the police statement of any person under Section 161 of the Cr.PC for the purpose of anticipatory or regular bail, the court must first ascertain whether such person is actually a witness or an accused person, or likely to be an accused person in respect of the offence(s) alleged. This is because, there may be situations where a person while giving his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC may not be an accused, but later arrayed as one. In such a scenario, the courts must be mindful of the fact that because the investigation is still ongoing, it is more likely for a person who was originally a witness to happen to be later arrayed as an accused person. If the court was to blindly place reliance on statement of such a person merely because he is not named in the first information report, without first seeding whether such person is likely to be arrayed as an accused or not, it would lead to an absurd situation where the statement of such a person may be relied upon up until such person is arrayed as an accused. We also caution the courts, where it emerges from the material on record, that such a person is likely to be arrayed as an accused, the courts should refrain from expressing any such opinion so that the investigation is not prejudiced in any manner."

11. It was contended by learned Advocate Mr. Nair that Vishnu Sharma was required to be made an accused instead of Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined that he is being cited as witness. According to advocate Mr. Nair, the statement was exculpatory nature qua Vishnu Sharma while was inculpatory against the present applicant and the other accused. Thus, stated that as per the decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra), the statement cannot be relied upon.

12. It would be necessary to note that it is not only the statement of Vishnu Sharma and Ms. Ketki Patel but other statements of the students were drawn together to file the charge-sheet against the accused. The statement has been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. The whole chain of events has been stated by Vishnu Sharma. He is a person who has paid the money and therefore, cannot be considered as an accomplice as per the provision of the PC Act. The statement of Ms. Ketki Patel would show the involvement of the present applicant during the NEET Examination and his modus of collecting money in furtherance of assurance of increasing the marks by manipulating the OMR sheets so as the students were asked to keep the answer sheets blank, the conspiracy could be found by the investigation of the CBI.

13. In the case of Union of India (UOI) vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., MANU/SC/0414/1978, AIR 1979 SC 366, the principles have been laid down for dealing with the discharge application, which is provided in para 10 as under:

"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

13.1 The duty of the Court while examining the discharge application, examining the statement of the witnesses would be for a limited purpose finding out whether there is prima facie case made out against the accused. The statements as Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/936/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined recorded discloses grave suspicion against the present applicant and being a case of NEET examination and when statements of the students who were also effected by such unfair mal-practices has been recorded with the statements of the persons who have actually made the payment, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present application stands rejected.

(GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH/28 Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 22:25:03 IST 2026