Petitioner, not named in FIR and not present at the scene, granted bail after over seven months in custody; investigation complete but trial pending.
In a significant order dated 11th September 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal, granted regular bail to Robin Singh alias Robin, a petitioner implicated in the high-profile CSIR-UGC NET examination paper leak case. The case pertains to the alleged fraudulent leakage of examination papers scheduled for 18th December 2025, involving a sophisticated syndicate that demanded payments of Rs. 3-4 lakhs per student.
The petitioner was arrested under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 238(b), and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 10 and 11 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The FIR registered at Police Station Sadar Gohana, Sonipat, was based on a police operation triggered by secret information. On 17th December 2025, police intercepted a Tempo Traveller near N.C. College, Sonipat, which was transporting several students to a building identified as `Narwal Kabaddi Academy.' The police found students with question papers allegedly leaked for the upcoming examination and arrested key accused Neeraj Kumar Dhanak and Sachin, who were caught at the spot with laptops, printers, and mobile phones used in the operation.
The petitioner's role, as per the prosecution, was limited to providing the physical space where the offense occurred. However, he was neither named in the FIR nor found present at the crime scene. His implication arose solely from the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Ashish. The petitioner's counsel argued that the building was a college under renovation owned by six persons, including the petitioner's wife, and that the petitioner was unaware of the illicit activities conducted there.
The petitioner had been in custody since 20th January 2026, amounting to over seven months of detention. Despite the completion of the investigation, the trial had not commenced, and none of the 23 witnesses, including police officials, had been examined. The petitioner's advocate contended that there was no risk of the petitioner influencing witnesses or absconding, given his fixed residence and the nature of the evidence.
The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner's criminal antecedents and his alleged syndicate membership. However, the Court noted that the petitioner was not involved in the actual leakage or distribution of the question papers, unlike other co-accused who were arrested at the scene and had been granted bail earlier.
Balancing the facts, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the absence of direct evidence against him and considering the prolonged pre-trial detention. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.
This judgment underscores judicial caution in granting bail where the accused's involvement is primarily based on co-accused statements and the accused's absence from the crime scene, especially when the trial process is delayed.
Bottom Line:
Regular bail granted to the petitioner who was not named in the FIR, not present at the spot, and whose alleged involvement was based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 316(2), 318(4), 238(b), 61; Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 Sections 10, 11
Robin Singh alias Robin v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979257
