Accused in HSSC paper leak case granted bail

Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 20

A local court has granted bail to an accused, Ankit, in the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSCC) paper leak case.

On December 5, 2019, the police had foiled a plot to leak a question paper with the arrest of a manager of a local computer lab, Nitish Kumar. Around 11 job aspirants were also nabbed from the computer lab in Industrial Area. According to the police, Nitish Kumar had allegedly planned to sell the “leaked” question paper to each aspirant for Rs 10-15 lakh. The police had also apprehended a person, who was sitting in the examination centre, in the place of Ankit, an aspirant.

“The presentation of challan and conclusion of the trial will take time. So, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period,” stated the court.

The police claimed that Nitish Kumar was a manager at Mapple Technology Lab and he had allegedly executed the plan with his accomplices. An FIR was registered at the instance of complainant Vaishali Kamboj, a data entry operator with the Department of HSSC, Panchkula, Haryana. Besides Nitish, four other alleged members of the gang were also booked.

Kamboj, who was deputed as a representative from the HSSC, at the examination Centre in Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, caught the imposter, Param Moj, and informed Supervisor Nirmal Singh. He was handed over to the police.

Dikshit Arora, advocate for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

The court stated the investigation of the case had been completed and the challan prepared is under scrutiny.

“The presentation of challan and conclusion of the trial will take time so no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. In view of the above, the bail application of Ankit is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond for Rs30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate,” stated the court.