Delhi High Court

Ashish vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 May, 2022

                      #

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW                              DELHI

                                                             Order reserved on:       05.05.2022
                                                             Order delivered on:      13.05.2022
                      +     BAIL APPLN. 143/2022

                            ASHISH                                           ..... Petitioner

                                              Through:     Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
                                                           Mr.Manoj Kohli, Advocate.
                                              versus

                            CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                  ..... Respondent

                                              Through:     Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, SPP with
                                                           Mr.Prakarsh Airan and Ms.Harpreet
                                                           Kalsi, Advocates.

                      CORAM:

                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
                                                       ORDER

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.PC filed on behalf of the

petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case No. RC-DAI-2021-A-

0032 registered under Sections 420/467/120-B IPC read with Section 66D of

the IT Act.

2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, on the basis of source

information, the present FIR/RC was registered, wherein it was stated that

Signature Not Verified

By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.05.2022 14:36:03 National Testing Agency (NTA), an autonomous testing organization is

entrusted by the Government of India with the task of conducting free and

fair examinations for admission to premier higher education institutions. One

of such examinations is Joint Entrance Examination (Mains) conducted for

admission to Undergraduate Engineering Programs (B.E/B. Tech). The

fourth session of JEE (Mains), 2021 in Computer Based Test (CBT) was

conducted on 26th, 27th, 31st August and 1st and 2nd September, 2021 at

different centers located in major cities throughout the country and abroad.

It is further the case of prosecution that V. Mani Tripathi, Siddharth

Krishna and Govind Vaarshney were the directors/signatories of M/s

Affinity Education Pvt. Ltd. having its office at NOIDA, Gautam Budh

Nagar. Also one Ms. Seema was the counselor of admission for Delhi/NCR

and Ms. Anjuman Dawoodani was the counselor of admission for

Maharashtra. Both the abovementioned persons were assisting V. Mani

Tripathi, Siddharth Krishna and Govind Varshenen in soliciting and

managing admission in top NITs and reputed engineering colleges by

adopting fraudulent means and unfair practices.

It is further alleged that Rs.10-15 lacs were being demanded from the

parents of aspiring students for which they were asked to deposit Post Dated

Signature Not Verified

By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.05.2022 14:36:03 Cheques for an assured admission. The user ID and password of candidates

appearing for examination were also collected for getting desired

examination centers. The modus operandi was that above persons would

arrange a solver sitting at remote location for solving the questions which

were displayed on the computer terminal allotted to the candidates. The

centre supervisor, who would access to the computer network, was also a

part of fraudulent act.

The above persons are stated to have connived with the supervisor of

JEE (Mains), 2021, Session-4 exam centres at Sonipat and made necessary

arrangements for fraudulent practices. During investigation, 3-4 candidates

alleged that were given solved question paper several hours prior to the exam

and were taken to some flat at Rohini in the wee-hours and were given

solved question papers to memorize, which came in the exam. The

investigation team was led to Flat No. 546, Paradise Apartments, Sector-18,

Rohini. The owner of the said flat disclosed that the same was rented to the

petitioner Ashish and Sunil (a relative of Ashish) who were residents of

Rohini. The owner of the flat further informed that he had requested one of

his colleagues to help in renting out of the flat and she had contacted Alka

Sharma, a property dealer of the locality and given her keys for purpose of

Signature Not Verified

By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.05.2022 14:36:03 renting the property. The petitioner and co-accused Sunil who were known

to Alka Sharma took the flat on rent from her saying that a lady namely SI

Priyanka Dagar, whose flat in the same apartment was under renovation,

required the flat for a period of three months. SI Priyanka Dagar stated that

the flat was under renovation and she had placed some of her articles in the

said flat and thereafter removed the same. Both Alka Sharma as well as SI

Priyanka Dagar stated that the flat remained in possession of the petitioner

and co-accused Sunil. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner

and co-accused Sunil had helped the aspirants in memorizing the question

papers and the identity of evidence has been withheld to maintain secrecy of

investigation. The petitioner and co-accused Sunil are also stated to be

operating online examination centres i.e. Genex Online Examination Centre

and Impulse Online Exam Centre and are stated to have compromised

various exams.

During the search conducted on 14.10.2021 at Paradise Apartments

(residence of the petitioner and co-accused Sunil), several incriminating

documents including list of candidates and the person who has brought the

candidates to them for getting the papers cracked as well as electronic

devices were seized. The accused are stated to be evading the process of law

Signature Not Verified

By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.05.2022 14:36:03 despite notice under Section 160 Cr.PC and notice under Section 41-A

Cr.PC. In view of above, Non-Bailable Warrants are stated to have been

issued against the petitioner and co-accused Sunil.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no documents

whatsoever connecting the petitioner with the flat had been seized by the

investigating agency and there is no direct evidence in the shape of aspiring

any students or parents of the student or assuring them for any undue benefit

in the examination. The alleged recovery of incriminating material is stated

to be not connected with the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner

is willing to join the investigation and has clean past antecedents.

4. On the other hand, the application has been vehemently opposed by

learned SPP for CBI. The evidence collected during investigation,

incriminating the accused is relied upon.

5. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. At the

outset, it may be observed that merely because CBI has initiated the process

under Sections 82/83 Cr.PC despite the pendency of the anticipatory bail

application before this Court does not bar the consideration of the application

by this Court. It cannot be ignored that the only role which has been ascribed

to the petitioner is regarding helping a student to memorize the questions.

Signature Not Verified

By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.05.2022 14:36:03 Petitioner had no substantive role in respect of the alluring the parents or

taking any active part at the respective centers. Merely because the flat taken

by SI Priyanka Dagar is stated to have been subsequently in possession of

the petitioner cannot lead to an adverse presumption at this stage. The

evidence can be duly collected after joining of the petitioner in the process of

investigation.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has clean past antecedents and

is not required in any other case, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be

released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of the sum of Rs.

One lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer/SHO concerned and subject to the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner/applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned/concerned trial court at the time of release, which shall be kept in working conditions at all times. The petitioner/applicant shall not switch- off, or change the same without prior intimation during the period of his interim bail;