NITIN YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anupinder Singh Grewal, J 1. Case taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 433 dtd. 7/8/2021, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' - for short) (Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act and Sec. 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused. It is alleged that the petitioner had helped the candidates in the examination by changing thumb impressions in the biometric system. Besides the statement of co-accused, there is no prima facie material which would connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of offence. It is also alleged that the money was to be taken from the candidates for changing the biometric system, however, the examination was cancelled a few days before it had to take place. There is no allegation that any money had actually been obtained from a candidate. He also contends that in the reply filed by the DSP, it is stated that co-accused Ramesh Kumar had met the petitioner in Panchkula on 5/8/2021 which has been verified from the mobile phone location of Ramesh Kumar. He, however, contends that the affidavit is silent as to whether the mobile phone location of the petitioner had been obtained indicating his presence along with co-accused Ramesh Kumar.