Manish Kumar And Others vs State Of HP

Rakesh Kainthla, J

Since both these petitions have arisen out of a common FIR, they are being taken up together for disposal.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 41 of 2025, dated 18.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 10 and 11 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P.

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Mohit, Aashish, Manish Kumar (the present petitioner), Gaurav, Ritu Devi, Shubham (the present petitioner), and Mohit Kumar were found with electronic devices on 18.05.2025 in Chapslee School, which was a designated Centre for JNV Selection test. The electronic devices were recovered from Mohit and Aashish at the time of their frisking at the entry gate, and they were not allowed to enter the examination room. The police registered the F.I.R., investigated the matter, and filed the charge sheet against the accused before the Court. The petitioners have been in custody since 19.05.2025. They belong to a respectable family. The allegations against them are false. They are permanent residents of Haryana and have roots in the society. They would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The co-accused Mohit has been enlarged on bail on 31.3.2026, and the petitioners are entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant had made a complaint to the police stating that Chapslee School was a designated centre for the JNV Selection Test conducted on 18.05.2025. Seven candidates, Mohit, Aashish, Munish, Gaurav, Ritu Devi, Shubam and Mohit Kumar were found with unauthorised electronic devices. The electronic devices were recovered from Mohit and Aashish at the time of their frisking at the entry gate, and they were not allowed to enter the examination room. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The accused revealed during the interrogation that their fathers had entered into a deal to get the examination cleared. An amount of ₹2/2.50 Lakhs was to be paid in case of success. The police obtained call detail records. The analysis of call detail records showed that various calls were made. The call detail records and customer forms have been obtained, which need to be deeply analysed. The CCTV footage of the examination hall and the record of the examination were also seized. A special Investigating team was constituted to investigate the matter. The petitioners belong to another state, and they are likely to abscond in case of their release on bail. The petitioners may be a part of the large organised syndicate; hence the status report.

I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granted bail to the co-accused Gaurav in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).504/2026 decided on 20.03.2026, and this Court granted bail to co-accused Mohit in Cr.MP(M) No. 263 of 2026. The petitioners are also entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners were involved in the commission of a heinous offence. They had adopted unfair means in the examination to steal a march over the other candidates. Such an act should not be lightly viewed. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

"7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England" (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 - Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious oflences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)

In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied)

This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

"3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the oflence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)

"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the oflence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the oflence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." (emphasis supplied)

xxxxxxx

One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)

"35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the oflence(s) alleged against an accused." (emphasis supplied)

Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:

The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime...."

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is undisputed that police had arrested Mohit, Aashish, Manish Kumar (the present petitioner), Gaurav, Ritu Devi, Shubham (the present petitioner) and Mohit Kumar in F.I.R. No. 41 of 2025 with the allegations of using unfair means in the examination. The Hon'ble Supreme was pleased to grant bail to Gaurav, one of the co-accused, on the ground of prolonged custody. This Court had also granted bail to Mohit Kumar on similar grounds. The allegations against the petitioners are similar, and they are entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, on such terms and conditions as the learned Trial Court concerned may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Needless to say, the petitioners shall also comply with the conditions contained in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 504 of 2026 dated 20th March, 2026.

The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits.