Using Unfair Means In Public Examination A Serious Offence: Uttarakhand High Court Refuses Bail To Assistant Proctor
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a bail application of a Assistant Proctor who is accused in a case related to alleged malpractices in an examination conducted by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
The Court, emphasized the severity of the offense, describing it as a case of using unfair means in a public examination.
The accused, currently in judicial custody, is charged under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC, and Sections 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988.
A Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani held, “It is a case of using unfair means in the public examination. It is a serious offence. Whatever material is available before this Court at this stage, commands this Court to reject the bail application”
Advocate Sandeep Kothari appeared for the Applicant and Advocate Amit Bhatt appeared for the Respondent.
The prosecution contended that applicant was appointed as an Assistant Proctor for the examination, facilitated the use of unfair means by accepting money and providing answers to candidates. The defense argued that there is no evidence against the applicant, emphasizing his role as an Assistant Proctor with no direct involvement in the alleged misconduct. The State counsel presented CCTV footage confirming the active role of the applicant.
The Court, considering the arguments, CCTV footage, and statements from witnesses, noted the seriousness of the offense involving the use of unfair means in a public examination.
The Court further noted, “Witnesses Gulamuddin and Jeeshan have categorically stated about the role of the applicant to help in examination. Candidate Vishal Kumar is more categorical. He tells that through Sachin son of Late Swaram, he paid money and the person, who met him in the examination hall, straightway took him at a seat which was not covered by CCTV, took the photographs of the question paper, which he scrolled on the system and thereafter, gave him answers, which he did quickly.”
The Court found sufficient grounds to reject the bail application, stating that there was no justification to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
In conclusion, the Court rejected his bail application, citing the gravity of the allegations and the available evidence indicating his involvement in the malpractices during the examination.
Cause Title: Sachin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand
Click here to read/download Order
