CRM-M/33965/2026 of PARAMJEET Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 17 July 2026

CRM-M-3396

IN THE HIG

Paramjeet State of Harya

Date of Decis Date of Uploa

CORAM:

Present:

SUMEET GO

Nagarik Sura (erstwhile Se petitioner, in offences puni (for short ‘BN Unfair Means Prevention of Hisar, District

2. with his co-a complainant, 5-2026

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM-M-33965-2

versus

ana

sion: July 17, 2026 ading: July 18, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate an Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate for the Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior ***** OEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed aksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ction 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for case bearing FIR No.165 date ishable under Section 318(4) of th NS’), Sections 10 & 11 of the P

s) Act, 2024 (for short ‘PE Act f Corruption Act, 1988 (for short t Hisar. The gravamen of allegation again accused visited Hotel Paris Inn, namely, Sumit Kumar, Venue Co

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

....Petitioner

....Respondent EET GOEL e with nd e petitioner. r DAG Haryana. under Section 482 of Bharatiya to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) grant of anticipatory bail to the d 17.05.2026, registered for the he Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ublic Examination (Prevention of t’) and Sections 8 & 12 of the ‘PC Act’), at Police Station City nst the petitioner is that he along Hisar, on 15.05.2026, where the ommanding Officer (VCO) at OM

r t a ) e e f e y g e M

Institute of Technology and Management, who was assigned duties in connection with the IIT-JEE Advanced Examination, 2026, had stayed. During the meeting, the petitioner actively participated in requesting the complainant to extent illegal assistance to secure un unfair advantage for a candidate appearing in the examination. Allegedly, the petitioner and his co-accused attempted to induce the complainant by offering two bundles of Rs.500 currency notes as illegal gratification.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned senior counsel has contended that there is an unexplained delay of 02 days in lodging the FIR in question. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the allegations leveled therein are vague since neither roll number nor name of the candidate find mention in the FIR in question. It has been further contended that the IIT-JEE (Advanced) Examination, 2026 is a computer-based examination conducted online by the Joint Admission Board, 2026. It has been further contended that as per the Schedule attached to the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Act No.1 of 2024 is applicable only in those cases, where the public examination is conducted by a Public Examination Authority; but the Joint Admission Board constituted by the IITs of the Country is not a Public Examination Authority. Learned senior counsel has further argued that it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR in question that the complainant, who had stated himself as a Venue Commanding Officer and was assigned the responsibility of conducting examination at a private center, is a “public servant”, in terms of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. It has been, thus, argued that the provisions of Act of 2024 as well as PC Act are not attracted to the case in hand. It has been further contended that even provisions of Section 318(4) of the

BNS are not attracted as alleged inducement offered by unknown persons did not result in any assistance/ help by the complainant, when, the complainant himself had refused to render such assistance.

3.1. Learned senior counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the petitioner is a man aged 35 years with clean antecedents & undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. It has been further asserted that the petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 03.07.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been stated in Para- 8 of the aforesaid status report, which reads as under: “8. Specific role of the petitioner: The specific role attributed to the petitioner is that he, along with the co-accused, personally visited Hotel Paris Inn, Hisar, on the night of 15.05.2026 and entered Room No.106, where the complainant, Shri Sumit Kumar, Venue Commanding Officer (VCO) for the IIT-JEE (Advanced) Examination, 2026, was staying. During the meeting, the petitioner actively participated in requesting the complainant to extend illegal assistance to secure an unfair advantage for a candidate appearing in the examination. It is alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused attempted to induce the complainant by offering two bundles of Rs 500 currency notes as illegal gratification. The presence of the petitioner at the hotel is corroborated by the CCTV footage collected during investigation, the movement of the vehicles is supported by the toll plaza records, and the statements of material witnesses further substantiate his involvement. The petitioner, thus, played an active and conscious role in the commission of the alleged offences and was not a mere bystander. His custodial interrogation is essential to ascertain the complete conspiracy, identify other persons involved, trace the source of the money offered as bribe and recover further incriminating evidence.”

4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the seriousness of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, ascertaining complete conspiracy, identifying other persons involved, tracing the source of the money offered as bribe and to recover further incriminating evidence, and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, relevant whereof reads as under:

“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus:

“28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character 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/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting 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 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. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous

homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.

25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.

26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.”

7. As per the prosecution case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. A perusal of the prosecution case and material collected during the course of investigation prima facie reveals that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, had personally visited Hotel Paris Inn, Hisar, where the complainant was staying. The petitioner actively participated in persuading the complainant to extend illegal assistance for securing an undue advantage to a candidate appearing in the examination. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, in furtherance of the said objective, along with his co-accused, attempted to induce the complainant by offering two bundles of ₹500 denomination currency notes as illegal gratification. It is further borne out from the prosecution case that the petitioner's involvement is prima facie corroborated by the CCTV footage collected from the said hotel, depicting his presence therein. Besides, the statements of the material witnesses recorded during the investigation further substantiate the prosecution version, while the movement of the vehicles allegedly used stands corroborated by the toll plaza records.

8. Economic offences and offences related to corruption erode public trust and, therefore, the Court(s) are required to exercise caution while extending the concession of anticipatory bail. Given the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail at this stage as it would impede the investigation. Furthermore, the plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and requires appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The same can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper the on-going investigation.

9. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Moreover, the investigation is underway and the same is at nascent stage.

10. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7

SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre- arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

11. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for verification of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.

12. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The instant petition is devoid of merits and is, hereby, dismissed.

(ii) Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE July 17, 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No