AALOK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in FI.R. No.14/2025 dtd. 18/5/2025, registered at Police Station New Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 318(4) & 319(2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It has been asserted that the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the above mentioned F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. As per the prosecution's story, a candidate bearing Roll No. 111231679 appeared in the Lab Assistant examination at DAV Public School, Sector-4, New Shimla. The photographs on the Aadhar card and the admit card were different and the signatures also did not tally. Hence, the matter was reported to the police, and Jatin Kumar was apprehended on the spot. The petitioner was not present at the examination centre on 18/5/2025. The petitioner is being implicated based upon the presumption of conspiracy. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R are punishable with imprisonment upto 07 years, and unnecessary arrest of a person is to be avoided as per the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar versus CBI, 2021(10) SCC 773. The co-accused has been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court wrongly applied the provisions of the "Public Examinations " (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The examination being conducted in the present case did not fall within the definition of a public examination. The petitioner is the sole caretaker of his aged and ailing father. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the examination of the Lab Assistant was being conducted at DAV Public School, New Shimla, on 18/5/2025. Roll Number 111231679 was issued to Aalok Sharma (present petitioner). The photograph in the Aadhar card and the admit card, as well as the signatures, were different. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the F.I.R. The police arrested the person who identified himself as Jatin Kumar. The police also checked the CCTV footage and found that Jatin Kumar had appeared in place of the petitioner in the examination. The petitioner absconded and did not appear before the police despite the repeated directions issued to his mother. Hence, the status report.

(3.) I have heard Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.