Aditya Kumar S/O Bheem Singh v. The State Of Maharashtra
1 18-ABA 2192-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2192 OF 2025 Aditya Kumar s/o Bheem Singh ... Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ----- Mr. A. K. Upadhyay a/w Dhananjay Bhosale a/w Rohan Kharat for the Applicant.
Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent-State. API Dhanesh Satardekar, MRA Marg Police Station is present. ----- CORAM :
N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
15TH SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C. :
Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date:
2025.09.16 10:45:49 +0530 MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE 1.
This is an application for anticipatory bail. The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.183 of 2025 registered at MRA Marg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 9 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board And Other Specified Examination Act, 1982.
2.
The prosecution case in brief is that from the years 2019 to 2023, The Government of India Mint (IGM), Mumbai, notified various vacancies through specific advertisements for the posts of Junior Office Assistant and Junior Bullion Assistant. For the purpose of conducting online examinations for the recruitment process, IGM appointed an agency, M/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). On 18th February 2025,
2 18-ABA 2192-25.doc the Security Printing Press (SPP), Hyderabad informed IGM, Mumbai that the candidature of one Nishant Kumar who appeared for document verification for the post of Supervisor (Technical) at their office on 08th February 2025, has been rejected on the ground that his candidature does not match with the candidate who appeared for the online examination at the Mumbai Test Centre. It was further informed that on the day of verification of documents, an employee of IGM, Mumbai, namely Atul Raj (Accused no.2) was accompanying the candidate. During the interrogation, Nishant Kumar revealed that he did not appear for the examination in Mumbai and the candidate who appeared in his place was arranged by Atul Raj.
Accordingly, IGM sought photographs from IDPS, pertaining to the candidates who appeared in the online examination for the various posts advertised through the advertisements dated 2019 to 2023. Thereafter, IGM constituted a committee to verify the documents of the appointed candidates, during the said process the photographs obtained from IDPS along with the attendance records and CCTV footages were scrutinized. The Committee submitted its report on 22nd March 2025, wherein it was observed that 7 candidates have secured their appointment at IGM on the basis of fake candidature, as the photographs taken on the date of examination do not match with the photographs uploaded by the candidates in their online application form.
With regards to the present Applicant, it is alleged that in the examination for the post of Junior Bullion Assistant, IGM, Mumbai, which was conducted on 07th May 2023, somebody else had appeared for the said online examination instead of the Applicant.
3 18-ABA 2192-25.doc 3.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is signature of Deputy General Manager to effect that the Applicant had appeared for the said examination. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no need of custodial interrogation and the Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation.
4.
On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the investigating officer has collected photographs of the person, who appeared in the examination in place of the Applicant. It is submitted that even departmental inquiry was conducted against the Applicant and in the said inquiry the Applicant was found guilty.
5.
I have perused the papers of investigation. From the said papers, it appears that instead of the Applicant, somebody else had appeared for the examination in question. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.)