Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking anticipatory bail for petitioner who allegedly run the center from which, the examination conducted for Sub-Inspector recruitment was hacked, Anoop Chitkara, J. refused to be lenient while dealing with ‘bail petitions of cyber-thugs’ and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner apprehended the arrest in FIR against candidates who could solve the online question-paper of the examination for the recruitment of Police Sub-Inspectors in Punjab while running the center from where, the examination center was hacked. The Court had earlier granted interim bail for offences under Sections 420, 465, 438, 471, 120-B and 409 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 vide order dated 10-04-2023.
The Police received secret information on 16-09-2021 that online examinations for recruitment of various departments were conducted at the center and some hackers had hacked the computers. It was also informed that in the examination for recruitment of Sub Inspectors conducted in August 2021, one candidate had secured the highest marks who had given his examination from the same center who allegedly had not secured marks due to merit but because of a gang of cyber criminals who hacked the computer centers for someone else to remotely solve his question paper after payment of massive amounts of money to cyber-thugs.
A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered and during investigation, the said candidate was arrested along with several others involved in such crimes and someone informed the police regarding involvement of petitioner, allegedly involved in making entries of candidates in the examination center and subsequently started running and looking after the computer center.
The Court perused the evidence against the petitioner which revealed sufficient prima facie evidence indicating the petitioner making entries in the call center and the same being run by him from which, the examination conducted for Sub-Inspector recruitment was hacked. In addition, there were communications between the petitioner and other accused persons, which the petitioner failed to explain.
The Court explained that the co-accused were granted regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC, wherein, one of the grounds was prolonged custody. Since the petitioner sought anticipatory bail, he was not entitled to bail on parity. The Court observed that the e allegations against the petitioner and co-accused were grave and that there was sufficient evidence that the candidates who appeared from the examination center suspiciously obtained more marks than their caliber, indicating the petitioner’s involvement.
The Court relied on Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 and State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 laying the factors to be considered by the Courts while granting pre-arrest bail.
The Court noted that “If this scam had not come to light, so many corrupt and unethical people would have got appointed to the sensitive post of Sub Inspector by giving money, and it can be well imagined what kind of officers they would have become and how much injustice such officers would have caused to the communities and the State. We must realize that because of the hacking, a highly sensitive and essential recruitment in the police, not only got impaired but also got derailed. It also exposed the vulnerability of the examination system and the usage of breach-able and unsafe software.”
The Court reiterated the duty of Executive to ensure that the software used for such sensitive examinations are fool-proof and secured with a well-written code considering the technological advancements and preventing any misuse of artificial intelligence by hackers.
The Court refused to be lenient while dealing with ‘bail petitions of cyber-thugs’. The Court was strict enough to opine that cyber criminals must be dealt with stringently and explained the need of custodial interrogation of persons in such sensitive persons for unfolding their involvement and also, the vulnerability in computer systems to prevent further breaches in future. Therefore, the Court dismissed the instant petition and also, recalled the interim order.
[Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Main No. 46621 of 2022, decided on 21-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate Ravinder Phogat;
For State: Assistant Advocate General of Punjab Karunesh Kaushal.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
This decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to deny pre-arrest bail in the Punjab Police SI recruitment exam hack case demonstrates a commitment to upholding the integrity of the examination process. The court’s stance sends a strong message against any attempts to compromise the fairness of such crucial assessments. It is crucial for the authorities to ensure the sanctity of recruitment procedures, and this decision sets a precedent for maintaining transparency and merit in the recruitment system. Upholding the rule of law in such cases is essential for fostering trust in the recruitment process and preserving the credibility of law enforcement agencies