The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a 35-year-old man accused of attempting to bribe an official to secure illegal assistance for a candidate in the IIT-JEE (Advanced) 2026 examination, ruling that corruption offences undermine public confidence and require cautious handling during preliminary probes.
Justice Sumeet Goel issued the ruling on July 17, stating that granting pre-arrest protection to the petitioner, Paramjeet, would hinder the ongoing investigation. The court stressed that corruption and economic crimes severely impact public trust, making it imperative to refrain from granting pre-arrest relief when custodial interrogation and further inquiries may be required.
According to the prosecution, the matter stems from an incident on May 15, 2026, at a hotel housing Sumit Kumar, who was deployed as a venue commanding officer at OM Institute of Technology and Management for the examination. Paramjeet and a co-accused allegedly visited Kumar’s hotel room, seeking unfair help for a candidate and offering two bundles of Rs 500 currency notes as illegal gratification.
Court Points to CCTV Footage and Investigation Needs
In dismissing the bail plea, the high court noted that preliminary evidence, including hotel CCTV footage showing Paramjeet at the location, established a reasonable basis for the allegations. Justice Goel held that given the gravity of the charges, the specific role attributed to the accused, and the requirement for custodial interrogation, granting anticipatory bail was not justified.
Opposing the bail application, Senior Deputy Advocate General Priyanka Sadar Thakur argued that the alleged crime was grave and raised concerns that the petitioner might abscond or tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence if granted relief.
Defense Questions FIR Delay and Statutory Scope
Representing Paramjeet, Senior Advocate Ankur Mittal raised several objections, noting an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). He pointed out that Paramjeet was not named in the initial complaint and argued that the claims were overly vague, as they omitted both the candidate’s name and roll number.
Mittal also argued that the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was inapplicable to the case. He stated that the Joint Admission Board, which conducts the computer-based online test, does not constitute a public examination authority under the statute. The defense added that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was committed to fully cooperating with investigating authorities.
Despite these arguments, the court concluded that the need for an unhindered probe and the serious nature of corruption allegations outweighed the grounds for pre-arrest bail.
