B.A./8929/2026 of RAVI SHANKAR SINGH @ RAVISHANKAR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 November 2026

1. Since the instant bail applications arise out of the same F.I.R., as such, these are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners have been made accused in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 69 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(3), 61 of B.N.S., Sections 65, 66, 66-B, 70, 84-B of the I.T. Act and

Sections 10(1) and 11(1) of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, pending in the Court of the learned C.J.M., Ramgarh.

3. As far as petitioner-Ravi Shankar Singh @ Ravishankar Singh in B.A. No. 8929 of 2026 is concerned, submission has been made on his behalf that admittedly, he was an employee of T.C.S. Company on 29.03.2026 and having no nexus with the offence alleged and even if the allegation of interaction with other co-accused person is taken on its face value, then also no offence is made out. He further submitted that this petitioner himself surrendered before court concerned on 4th May, 2026 and charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case has been committed to court of sessions and, as such, he is no more required for further investigation and further petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

4. As far as petitioner Sakir Ansari @ Sakir in B.A.No. 8369 of 2026 is concerned, submission has been made on his behalf that he was not employee on 29.03.2026 rather he left the T.C.S. Company about two years back and only allegation against this petitioner is that there was some interaction with other co-accused persons and it has come on record that the tower location of the mobile phone of this petitioner was at Namkum since morning on day of incident. He also pointed out that this petitioner got arrested on 30.03.2026 at the behest of Dinesh Kumar who apprehended in the University itself on 29.03.2026 and as far as this petitioner is concerned, not only charge-sheet has been submitted rather charge has also been framed against him and the case is posted for recording of prosecution evidence, as such, he is no more required for further investigation.

5. As far as petitioner-Rajesh Thakur in B.A. No. 9181 of 2026 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that of course this petitioner was an employee of T.C.S. Company on 29.03.2026 but apart from tower location of the mobile phone of petitioner near the P.O. there is no iota of material available on record which could connect this petitioner in the offence alleged. Even otherwise, it is submitted that this petitioner has surrendered before court concerned on 28.04.2026 and charge-sheet has also been submitted qua this petitioner and matter has been committed to court of sessions and he is no more required for further investigation.

6. Further, joint submission has been made on behalf of petitioners that no beneficiary has been identified during course of investigation and at best it is an alleged attempt to commit an offence if the prosecution story is taken on its face value. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer for bail has been made on behalf of all the three petitioners.

7. Learned P.P./Spl. P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that for conducting J.E.E. main examination, 2026 on 02.04.2024 T.C.S. Company was engaged by the University for smooth conduct of examination and all the three petitioners being an employee of T.C.S. taking advantage of their position with connivance of one staff of university tried to change the monitor and insert the software which would be used for facilitating the candidates to clear the examination and from whom huge amount has been collected by these petitioners.

8. It has further been pointed out at para 80 of the case diary and submission has been made that tower location of petitioners, namely, Ravi Shankar Singh @ Ravishankar Singh in B.A.No. 8929 of 2026 and Rajesh Thakur in B.A.No. 9181 of 2026 indicates that they were near the University which itself speaks about their involvement. As far as petitioner- Sakir Ansari @ Sakir in B.A.No. 8369 of 2026 is concerned, submission has been made by learned P.P./Spl. P.P. for the State that tower location reveals that his mobile phone was near Namkum but record reveals that there is continuous interaction with other co-accused persons which itself speaks a lot about his involvement in the present offence.

9. On query, learned P.P./Spl. P.P. very fairly conceded that none of the beneficiary (candidates of JEE Main

Examination) of this alleged offence has been identified during course of investigation who would have given money to these petitioners.

10. It is also pointed out that In-charge of TCS company conveyed to the I.O. that no steps were taken on behalf of TCS company for changing of monitor or changing the software on 29.03.2026 and also admitted the fact that Ravi Shankar Singh @ Ravishankar Singh and Rajesh Thakur were their employee and Sakir Ansari @ Sakir left the Company in the year 2024.

11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

12. Record reveal that for JEE Main Examination, 2026, Radha Govind University was one of the centres where computer etc. has been installed by TCS company for fair and smooth conduct of the examination and it is alleged that on 29.03.2026 at the behest of these petitioners nine monitors of the computer got changed and software were being installed in the said system to give benefit to some candidates who were appearing for JEE Main Examination, 2026.

13. Considering the fact that these petitioners are in custody since 04.05.2026, 30.03.2026 and 28.04.2026 respectively and none of the beneficiary is available during course of investigation and also the fact that in two cases charge-sheet has already been submitted and in one case trial has already commenced as such the investigation has already been concluded and these petitioners are no more required for further investigation and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which could suggest that if these petitioners are released on bail, they would tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee away from the justice, therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to these petitioners.

14. Accordingly, the petitioners, above-named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 69 of 2026, subject to the condition that these petitioners shall remain present before the trial court on each and every date of hearing, except medical exigency.

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

5th November, 2026

P.K.S./Suman

Uploaded