Anantpreet Singh Brar v. State of Bihar
In the High Court of Patna
Crim. Misc. 38894/2017
Before Justice Nilu Agrawal
Decided on April 18, 2018

Relevancy of the case: Bail application for leaking question papers and OMR sheets via WhatsApp and Bluetooth

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 34, 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471)
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13(2))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• According to the prosecution, the accused were involved in leaking question papers and answer sheets for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC). The accused were caught and they named certain co-accused. They revealed their modus operandi, using WhatsApp and Bluetooth to transfer answers to examinees.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He wasn’t named in the FIR and simply supplied OMR sheets for the BSSC examination. So, there was no question regarding the leakage of the paper by him. The charge of criminal conspiracy regarding his communication with the Secretary, Chairman, Printer and IT manager was incidental to his job. He also claimed that the allegation of a phone call with a co-accused was falsified. Further, the confession of the petitioner that his writing matched the manuscript of the BSSC exam was given to a police laboratory in Bihar, which did not offer a definite opinion. He talked about the severe health conditions of the petitioner who had been in judicial custody for more than a year.
• The respondent’s counsel stated that the petitioner had committed a serious offence affecting the morale and education of the society, which derived meritorious candidates of their seat. Further, the investigation provided evidence for his involvement. The IT Manager claimed the petitioner was part of the conspiracy, along with the owner of a coaching institute that the petitioner had a call with (as proven by the Call Data Records). The petitioner had revealed he was in contact with several other accused, some of whose bail applications have been denied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the petitioner should be denied bail.

Opinion of the Bench

• The judge considered the facts and circumstances, the available evidence, and the seriousness of the alleged offence, and did not feel inclined towards granting bail.

Final Decision

• The bail application was rejected.

This case summary has been prepared by Akshita Rohatgi, an undergraduate student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.