Kerala High Court
Shuhaib vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 619 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:18342
'CR'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 619 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2097/2024 OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.2320 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
SHUHAIB
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O USAIMATH CHOLAYIL HOUSE P O KODUVALLY
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673572
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.MUHAMMED FIRDOUSE
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
DIPA V.
BAIL APPL. NO. 619 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:18342
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-,
PIN - 695008
SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 619 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:18342
'CR'
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A. No. 619 of 2025
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2025
ORDER
Examinations are like puzzles. Sometimes, you get
stuck, but with persistence and patience, you can figure it
out. Examinations are also a nostalgic remembrance of
school and college days. Preparing for an examination, going
to the examination hall with excitement, enthusiasm and
ofcourse with some stress, waiting for the question paper in
the examination hall till the bell rings and getting the
question papers and after reading it, when there are
questions which can be easily answered, the goosebumps of
2025:KER:18342
happiness coming etc are the good memories of everyone.
2. Therefore, the conduct of examinations should be
fair and transparent. The sanctity of examination refers to
the importance of maintaining the integrity, fairness and
authenticity of the examination process. It involves
upholding the highest standards of honesty, transparency
and accountability to ensure that examinations are
conducted in a manner that is trustworthy, reliable and valid.
If there is any leakage of question papers to the benefit of
any section of students, it is nothing but cheating of the
other section of the students who worked hard day and night
preparing for the examination. Leakage of a question paper
can have a significant effect on the examination process,
candidates and the education department conducting the
examination. It will lead to the loss of credibility to the
Education Department, anxiety and stress to the student
community and unfair advantage to candidates who have
2025:KER:18342
access to the leaked question papers. Leakage of question
papers is a clear case of cheating against the student
community who studied well and came to the examination
hall to write their examinations with a 'finger cross'.
Therefore, the sanctity of examination is to be maintained in
the education system.
3. The allegation in this case is that there was
leakage of the question paper. The Commissioner of
Examinations and Director of General Education Department
wrote a letter to the Crime Branch HeadQuarters alleging
that the questions in the question papers of the Second
Terminal Examination of 2023 and of the First and Second
Terminal examination in 2024 were released in the YouTube
channel of 'MS Solutions' owned by a person named
Shuhaib, a native of Koduvally, hours before the start of the
examination under the name 'question prediction'. It is
further stated that these questions were predicted by the
2025:KER:18342
said person, who is a Chemistry Teacher, by leaking the
question paper. Videos of questions being released in this
way before the examination of all subjects are seen on this
channel, and all these questions appeared in the examination
is the complaint. Hence, the authority demanded an
investigation into this matter. As per the direction of the
State Police Chief, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by a
special team headed by the Dy.S.P. Crime Branch under the
direct supervision of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch,
Kozhikode and Wayanad. In the preliminary report, it was
recommended to register a case in the State Crime Branch
Unit.
4. Accordingly, the Additional Director General of
Police, Crime Branch Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram,
granted permission to register a crime in the Crime Branch
Police Station and entrusted the investigation of the case to
the Dy. S.P. II, Crime Branch, Kozhikode Unit. Accordingly,
2025:KER:18342
Crime No.2097/2024 was registered by the Crime Branch
Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections
316(2), 316(3), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023. The petitioner
herein is arrayed as 1st accused in the above case. The
petitioner apprehends arrest. Hence, this Bail Application is
filed.
5. Heard Adv. Sri. S. Rajeev, who appeared for the
petitioner and also Adv. Sri. Noushad K.A., Senior Public
Prosecutor who appeared for the State.
6. The counsel for the petitioner argued the matter in
detail. Adv. Rajeev submitted that this is a false case foisted
against the petitioner based on some media news. The first
and foremost contention raised by the counsel is that the
petitioner is not getting an opportunity to explain his case
before an authority, and the Police are trying to arrest the
petitioner even without understanding the case put forward
2025:KER:18342
by the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is
that he predicted the questions based on the question papers
of previous years. According to the petitioner, all the
questions in the question papers, which, according to the
prosecution, were leaked, had also appeared in the previous
examinations. The petitioner only predicted some of the
questions. It is the case of the petitioner that he has reliable
materials to explain how he selected the questions for the
purpose of prediction. It is submitted that he does not have
an opportunity to explain these things to the Investigating
agency as they will arrest the petitioner even before
ascertaining the truth. It is also the case of the petitioner
that there are several allegations regarding the leakage of
question papers, and allegations are levelled against the
Tuition Center lobby and office of the Education Department.
To divert the attention from such allegations, the petitioner
was made a scapegoat is the submission. The counsel
2025:KER:18342
submitted that the petitioner has more than 8 years of
experience in the field. According to the petitioner, the
teachers and coaching centers normally publish probable
questions as predictions for the purpose of attracting
students. The petitioner is also conducting an online
coaching class for students appearing for public examination.
It is submitted that, from his experience and based on the
previous year's question papers, the petitioner suggested
probable questions which may come for examination. It is
the definite case of the petitioner that he has got a very
good reason for selecting those questions. It is also
submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that all
institutions and those who maintain YouTube channels used
to publish probable questions and the institutions like Xylem,
Eduport, Exam winner, etc, also published similar questions
through YouTube channels as prediction, and these questions
came for the next examination. It is the case of the
2025:KER:18342
petitioner that, based on research conducted by him, most of
the questions are repetitions, and based on this analysis, the
petitioner prepared several questions and uploaded the
same. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready to
cooperate with the investigation, and he may be granted
bail, invoking the powers under Section 482 of BNSS.
7. Senior Public Prosecutor, Adv. Noushad seriously
opposed the bail application. The Senior Public Prosecutor
took me through the manuscript of the video published by
the petitioner before the examination. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the predictions of the petitioner are not mere
predictions, but it is done after collecting the questions from
the public servants. The Public Prosecutor submitted that it is
a clear case of leakage of the question paper. The Public
Prosecutor took me through the video and submitted that a
detailed investigation is necessary, for which the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary.
2025:KER:18342
8. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The main argument of
the petitioner is that he is not getting an opportunity to
explain his stand before the Investigating Officer. According
to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer wants to arrest
the petitioner because there is hue and cry from the media.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer to explain
his stand. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and
the Public Prosecutor in length on 20.02.2025, this Court
passed the following order.
"Petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer in
Crime No.2097/2024 on 22.02.2025. The Investigating Officer
will record the statement of the petitioner and will submit a
report before this Court on 25.02.2025.
Post on 25.02.2025.
The petitioner shall not be arrested till then. But, I make it
clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and this
order is only based on the submission of the petitioner that he
wants to explain the cases to the Investigating Officer."
2025:KER:18342
9. Based on the above order, the petitioner appeared
before the Investigating Officer, and his statement was
recorded. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to
complete the investigation.
10. Therefore, this Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner in detail. This Court asked the Public
Prosecutor to produce the case diary. The Public Prosecutor
made available the case diary. This Court perused the same
also. A perusal of the case diary would show that the
petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused in the above case .
The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of several
teachers and academicians. Almost all teachers who were
questioned by the Investigating Officer have a unanimous
opinion that unless actual question papers were not seen,
the way in which the petitioner predicted the
2025:KER:18342
question paper in the online forum is not possible.
11. This Court perused the English question paper for
the 10th standard in the first terminal examination. Question
Nos.18 to 26 were predicted by the petitioner and circulated
in his YouTube channel in the same order as in the question
paper, that is important. The questions were revealed in the
video in the same order in which the questions came in the
examination. The experts in this field gave statements to
the Investigating Officer that, unless the real question
papers were seen, such a prediction is impossible. This
Court has no expertise in such matters. The academicians
and teachers gave statements to the effect that, without
leakage of the question paper, it is not possible to give
predictions as done by the petitioner through his YouTube
channel. There is nothing to disbelieve such a statement
given by the academicians and teachers.
12. The counsel for the petitioner made available a
2025:KER:18342
pen drive containing the video published by the petitioner and
also the disputed question papers. The counsel for the
petitioner also made available the textbooks from which the
questions were selected. The counsel for the petitioner also
produced the previous year's question papers to prove that all
the questions mentioned in the disputed question papers were
also asked in the previous years. But, the prosecution case is
that the order in which the questions were mentioned in the
question paper would show that it is not possible without
leakage of the question papers. This version of the prosecution
is corroborated by the statement given by the teachers and
academicians in this field.
13. As I mentioned earlier, this Court has no
expertise to decide whether there is any leakage of
question paper. Moreover, the investigation of the case is
going on. Now, only the petitioner and two others
were implicated as accused. The statement given
by the co-accused is also produced, which I do not
2025:KER:18342
want to mention in a bail order. If at all, there is any leakage
of questions, the source of leakage is to be found out. For
that purpose, the investigating officer wants to question the
petitioner in custody. Even though this Court gave an
opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same to the
investigating officer, the investigating officer was not
satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. In
such circumstances, this Court cannot contradict the
statement given by the teachers and experts in this field,
especially while considering a bail application. According to
the prosecution, a detailed investigation is necessary, for
which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. I
am not in a position to say at this stage that the petitioner
has not committed the offence, and the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The Sessions
Judge, while dismissing the bail application, considered the
2025:KER:18342
contentions of the petitioner in detail. According to me, such
a detailed discussion is not necessary for deciding the bail
application. Even after the interrogation of the petitioner
based on the order passed by this Court on 20.02.2025, the
prosecution submits that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary, and this Court cannot deny the
same. Let the investigation continue in accordance with law.
The petitioner has to surrender before the investigating
officer and cooperate with the investigation. I am of the
considered opinion that this is not a fit case, in which this
Court should exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Sec. 482 of the BNSS. The prosecution made out a prima
facie case for custodial interrogation. In such circumstances,
if this court invokes extraordinary jurisdiction of anticipatory
bail in favour of the petitioner, it will give a wrong message
to the society. Let the students study well and appear for the
examination, and let them enjoy the goosebumps of
2025:KER:18342
happiness in the examination hall, when they see the
question papers, instead of seeing the leaked question
papers before the examination by cheating others.
There is no merit in this bail application,
and accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
nvj/SKS
