The High Court dismissed the applicant's anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged NEET exam malpractices under the IPC and Public Examination Act, finding a nexus between the applicant and co-accused and emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
aba1312.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1312 OF 2024
Iranna s/o Masnaji Kongalwar .. Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A. G. Talhar, D.S.G. of India for Respondent No. 3. Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for the State.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 23rd OCTOBER, 2024.S
ORDER :
aba1312.24.odt
office of Local Crime Branch. On 22.06.2024, they appeared before the police. They were asked to show their mobile phone. In their phone gallery, admission cards of various candidates were found. Similarly, there were WhatsApp chats with the said candidates. The said suspects are named as Jalil Khan Umarkhan Pathan and Sanjay Tukaram Jadhav. It is stated that on the basis of interrogation made with them, name of the present Applicant is surfaced.
aba1312.24.odt
CBI. According to him, evidence is found to indicate that mal-practices have been done in NEET. He submits that when notice was issued to the Applicant and he was called upon to cooperate in the investigation, he has submitted mobile phone of his daughter instead of his mobile phone. It is his contention that the same is revealed from the device information of the seized mobile. He drew attention of the Court to the correspondence made by the investigating agency for seeking CDR of the mobile phone of the Applicant. It is his submission that even if CDR is obtained, the same will not disclose the WhatsApp chat and for that purpose seizure of mobile instrument of the Applicant is essential and hence his custody is necessary.
aba1312.24.odt
co-accused in connection with the examination in respect of which the offence is registered. Prima facie perusal of the record more particularly, the device information, clearly shows that the mobile phone which is seized does not belong to the Applicant and at the most it can be said that the said phone is used by his daughter. This Court finds force in the contention of learned counsel Mr. Talhar that this is an attempt made by the Applicant to misguide and sabotage the investigation. Thus, for recovery of mobile phone instrument of the Applicant and to find out his role in the crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary.
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving examination malpractices?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Iranna s/o Masnaji Kongalwar
The State of Maharashtra
Others
R. M. JOTHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
