NEET 2024 Paper Leak: The Current Legal Angle

Introduction

The NEET-UG 2024 examination, conducted on May 5, 2024, was overshadowed by serious allegations of a massive paper leak. The scandal ignited nationwide outrage among students, parents, and educators, raising critical questions about the integrity of the examination process. Investigations unearthed that the leak originated from Oasis School, a private institution in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. The Principal and Vice-Principal of the school were implicated. The Economic Offences Unit (EOU) of the Bihar Police, in collaboration with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), uncovered the existence of an interstate solver gang allegedly led by Mukhiya, a technical assistant at Udyan Vidyalaya in Nalanda, Bihar. This gang reportedly exploited loopholes in the examination system, including the printing press, transportation process, and exam centres, to leak the NEET-UG question papers. The syndicate allegedly charged between ₹8–15 lakh per candidate, distributing the leaked papers via WhatsApp across states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan.

Applicable Legal Framework

In response to the incident, several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 were invoked.

Shashtri Nagar P.S. Case No. 358 of 2024 dated 05.05.2024 (RC No. 22122024E0006-CBI/EO-III/New Delhi) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 408, 409 and 120B of the I.P.C.

IPC Provisions Invoked: The First Information Report (FIR), registered by Patna police on May 5, 2024, the offence was alleged under sections:

• Section 407 – Criminal breach of trust by a carrier/warehouse keeper (up to 7 years imprisonment + fine).

• Section 408 – Criminal breach of trust by clerk/servant (up to 7 years imprisonment + fine).

• Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, or agent (life imprisonment or up to 7 years + fine).

• Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy (punishment depends on the nature of the offence).

These charges were deemed appropriate due to the involvement of an organized network comprising brokers, school officials, candidates, and intermediaries who allegedly sold the question papers for sums ranging between ₹30–50 lakh.

Investigative Developments

The Patna Police initially investigated the matter upon receiving a whistle-blower tip, just hours before the examination. Due to the scale and organized nature of the crime, the case was handed over to the EOU on May 11, 2024. An eight-member Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by Superintendent of Police Madan Kumar Anand, was formed to trace the paper's source, distribution network, and involved parties. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the CBI, which identified 155 students who benefited from the leaked papers, particularly in Patna and Hazaribagh. Investigators recovered charred remains of photocopied NEET question papers bearing serial numbers linked to Oasis Public School. A girl examinee reportedly received a booklet with a torn seal, confirming tampering. The list of witnesses is 500 and 1800 pages charge sheet has been filed by the C.B.I. The punishment of offences totals from 3 years to 7 years and it will consume a lot of time for the trial to end.

Case Analysis

One of the key accused, Kumar, is alleged to be the main conspirator. According to the CBI, he entered the control room at Oasis School using a toolkit. Illegally accessed and unsealed the question papers. Photographed the entire booklet and resealed it. Distributed the solved papers electronically via WhatsApp. Arranged accommodations and logistical support for candidates in Hazaribagh, Patna, Bokaro, and Bhubaneswar. Managed proceeds through his brother’s bank account. Attempted destruction of physical and digital evidence. Despite the weight of these allegations, the petitioner denied all charges, claiming wrongful implication. He argued: He was not named in the original FIR. No direct recovery of incriminating material was made from him. No cognizance of the charge sheet had been taken. A co-accused with similar allegations had already granted bail.

Arguments advanced by C.B.I - The CBI filed multiple affidavits detailing: Surveillance footage of the petitioner entering the control room. Statements from guards and school officials confirming his presence. Multiple witnesses identifying him at Raj Guest House and other locations. Recovery of digital evidence including iPhones, SIMs, and solved paper PDFs. Notably, the CBI submitted that the accused operated a full-fledged racket with solvers, handlers, and financiers, and was pivotal in orchestrating the crime. Court’s Decision The High Court, considering: The petitioner’s long custody (since July 17, 2024), Parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, Lack of direct recovery of incriminating material, And ongoing investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, ultimately granted bail with stringent conditions, including: Surrender of passport, Prohibition from influencing witnesses, Regular appearances before the court. The ruling highlights a balanced judicial approach between protecting constitutional rights and preserving the integrity of the investigation.

Conclusion

Despite the serious nature of the allegations and the opposition from the CBI, considering the overall facts, duration of custody, and that similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail, the Court directs that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI-II, Patna in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 358 of 2024 (R.C. No. 22122024E0006-CBI/EO-III/New Delhi), subject to the following conditions:

1. One of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioner and must submit a genealogy chart indicating the nature of the relationship.

2. The petitioner must be physically present before the trial court on each hearing date. Absence without sufficient cause on two consecutive dates will result in cancellation of the bail bond.

3. The petitioner shall not threaten, influence, or induce any witnesses.

4. The petitioner shall not leave India without the court’s permission and must surrender his passport, if any, to the CBI.

Authored by Muskan Priya, 1st year B.A LL.B ~ Impact Law College, Bihar