SI paper leak scam
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 27: In the much publicized SI paper leak scam, Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh today rejected the bail application of Dr Karnail Singh, presently posted in Border Security Force, IG Headquarter, Paloura, Jammu as Chief Medical Officer/Selection Grade/Commandant Medical.
As per the investigation conducted so far, petitioner has played key role in the criminal conspiracy to leak the question papers and sell the same to candidates in lieu of money. Moreover, investigation has revealed that Shubam Kala, son of Karnail Singh got the leaked question paper in Jammu through a tout Jagdish Sharma.
Petitioner’s official driver namely Ajay Kumar picked Shubam Kala, Jagdish and Paras Sharma from Asia Hotel, Jammu and took them to the residence of Karnail Singh. CDR analysis has revealed that Ajay Kumar, official driver of Dr Karnail Singh was in touch with Jagdish Sharma on early morning of 27.03.2022.
The petitioner has also manipulated the log book of official vehicle in a deliberate attempt to frustrate investigation. It has also been revealed that 3 candidates accessed leaked question paper at the house of petitioner, who made three calls on 25.03.2022 (one day before the date of exam) to Ashok Kumar, Controller of Examination, JKSSB. He also visited the office of JKSSB on 25.03.2022.
In the inquiry report, it has been alleged that there is discrepancy in the signature of invigilator on the OMR sheet of Shubam Kala, son of Karnail Singh when compared to signature on attendance sheet. The petitioner and his son have deleted data from their mobile phones, deleted date of CCTV installed at their house and concealed the proceeds of crime in a deliberate attempt to frustrate investigation.
After hearing both the sides, the CJM observed, “the kind of alliance that petitioner has (as per investigation) with the kingpins of an interstate gang that indulges in leakage of examination paper for various examinations for recruitment to public services – only displays and that too egregiously, the scale of resources, courage and influence that petitioner has to make such an intrusion”.
“The way son of petitioner is alleged to have tried to exert his influence over the witnesses to dissuade them from speaking against petitioner is yet another circumstance that speaks volumes about the influence that petitioner and his family is in a position to exercise over the witnesses”, the court said, adding “against this backdrop, the apprehension of prosecution/investigating agency that petitioner may intimidate the witnesses and fiddle with evidence in the event of grant of bail – is plainly sound and persuasive”.
With these observations, court rejected the bail application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel