Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sanjeev Kumar Shukla on 7 February, 2026
CR Cases/51/2019
CBI Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR SHUKLA
CNR No. DLCT12-000389-2019
RC No. 219/2016/E0017
07.02.2026
(At 03:00 PM)
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide whether accused person in the present case deserves to be discharged or he is liable for the charges to be framed against him.
Case of the Prosecution
2. Brief facts leading to the present matter are that the instant case RC was registered on 06.09.2016 on the basis of a written complaint dated 06.07.2016 of Dr. Ashok Kumar Jaryal, Sub- Dean (Exams), AIIMS, New Delhi against accused Sanjeev Kumar Shukla and unknown persons u/s 120-B r/w 420 Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as " IPC") regarding use of unfair means in AIIMS MBBS Entrance Examination 2016 by accused Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, Roll No. 6602441, Hall ticket No. 159445, Rank 14.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that on the basis of a complaint received by AIIMS vide email dated 19.06.2016, followed by a hard copy of the same, regarding use of unfair means by accused, in AIIMS MBBS Entrance Exam 2016, an internal investigation Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:10:48 +0545 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 1 of 35 was conducted by AIIMS which revealed that accused was seated next to one candidate namely, Nikhil Bajiya, Roll No. 6600838, Hall Ticket No. 159444, Shift-II in the said examination at Maharishi Arvind International Institute of Technology, Kota, Rajasthan who secured 2nd position in the said exam. In the FIR, it is also alleged that analysis of the Audit Log pertaining to the said two candidates revealed that accused was answering most of the questions after Nikhil Bajiya answered on Computer. Sh. Nikhil Bajiya answered the question in the order it appeared on the screen of computer whereas accused took enough time to search for the questions just answered by Sh. Nikhil Bajiya and after finding the questions took no time in answering the same. In the FIR, it is alleged that it seems that accused either directly copied the answers from Sh. Nikhil Bajiya or may have used software or other means to access the answers made by Sh. Nikhil Bajiya. Accordingly, accused secured 14 th rank in the said entrance exam by using unfair means and thereby cheated AIIMS.
4. During investigation, it was revealed that AIIMS conducted entrance examination for MBBS for AIIMS- New Delhi and all other six (6) AIIMS for a total of 672 seats in the year 2016. The online Entrance examination was conducted on 29th May, 2016 over various centers all over the country in two shifts on one same day.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.07
16:11:00 +0545
CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 2 of 35
5. During investigation, it was revealed that registration for AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination 2016 was opened on 15.02.2016 and closed on 15.03.2016. The notice for registration for AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination 2016 was published in all leading newspapers of the country through DAVP. The applicants were instructed to register themselves for the Entrance Examination online on the official website of Examination Section, AIIMS. The whole procedure of registration and submission of online form was handled at the backend by M/s Nysa Communication (New Delhi), Agency authorized by AIIMS.
6. During investigation, it was further revealed that after completion of the registration and application process, the examination was conducted by Tata Consultancy Services (hereinafter referred to as "TCS") under contract given by AIIMS. Online entrance examination was conducted on 29.05.2016 in two shifts (Shift I: 9 am to 12.30 pm and Shift II:
3.00 pm to 6.30 pm). The data of the applicants was provided to TCS a few days (3-5 days) before the Examination for 'mapping' of the applicants to specific computers at the Examination Centers. All the Centers for the Entrance Examination were provided by TCS after verification and vetting by the Examination Section, AIIMS. The data provided to TCS did not contain any contact information of the applicants.Digitally signed by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.07
16:11:06 +0545
CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 3 of 35
7. During investigation, it was further revealed that entrance examination was conducted under the supervision of designated Faculty/Officer of the AIIMS who was deputed to that Centre along with additional staff members from AIIMS as required.
The invigilators were locally recruited for this purpose by the TCS in coordination with In-charge of the concerned Centre. The IT operations of the examination was handled by the staff of TCS.
8. During investigation, it was further revealed that question paper for the AIIMS-MBBS Examination consisted of 200 objective type questions (Multiple choice type and Reason- Assertion type) in seven (7) sections of 1 mark each for correct answer and negative marking of 1/3 for each wrong answer (Total Marks = 200) (1) Questions 01 to 40: Biology (Multiple choice type) (2) Questions 41 to 80: Chemistry (Multiple choice type) (3) Questions 81 to 120: Physics (Multiple choice type) (4) Questions 121 to 140: General Knowledge (Multiple Choice type) (5) Questions 141 to 160: Biology (Assertion Reason Type) (6) Questions 161 to 180 Chemistry (Assertion Reason Type) (7) Questions 181 to 200: Physics (Assertion Reason Type) Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:11:13 +0545 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 4 of 35
9. During investigation, it was revealed that question papers for the exam for both shifts were encrypted by the examination section of AIIMS using software provided by TCS one day prior to the examination date i.e. 28.05.2016. Two passwords were required to decrypt the question papers. The passwords were set by Dr. Ashok Jaryal, Sub Dean (Exam). Further, at no point of time any staff of TCS had access to the decrypted question papers. Two hours before starting examination i.e. 7.00 AM for shift-I and 1.00 PM for shift-II, both passwords for each shifts were given to staff of TCS stationed at the command center of the exam. Then the passwords were circulated to all the examination centers through internal network of TCS. At each center, the password was received and entered on the software on the servers. A log of this process was automatically generated and maintained by AIIMS. Even further security mechanism was in place which prohibited even the entry of password two hours before the start of the examination. The question papers were not accessible to anyone before the exact commencement time of exam. The question papers were visible on the candidates' computers, who had logged in using their roll number and hall ticket as password. The question papers could not be seen on any other computer attached to the system. During the exam, the question papers were visible to candidates only and at a time only one question was displayed on the screen.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.07
16:11:20 +0545
CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 5 of 35
10. During investigation, it was revealed that in the exam, candidates were free to decide the sequence in which they wanted to attempt the different sections. However, within the sections the sequence of question was randomly generated. Even options for each question were in random order. The chance of two candidates having same sequence was virtually impossible.
11. During investigation, it was revealed that during examination no articles including pen, paper sheets were allowed to be carried by the candidates in the exam hall except only three items i.e. Admit Card, Valid ID proof and one photograph. During exam hours, candidates were supplied pen and rough sheets to do the needful. After exam admit card and rough sheets were also collected from the candidates by the invigilators for further submission in AIIMS records.
12. During investigation, it was further revealed that after conducting exam, TCS submitted the data of all the candidates in a CD to Sub-Dean Examination of which a copy was given to Exam Section of AIIMS for their processing. Answer key was kept confidential with Dr. Ashok Jaryal in his capacity as Associate Dean (Examination). The key was shared with the AIIMS staff deputed in the computer room, Examination Section, at the time of preparation of the final results (i.e., after the receipt of the responses of all data related to the examination from the TCS). The copy of answer key was also shared with TCS for Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 CBI 51/2019 16:11:26 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 6 of 35 evaluation at their end. The result was thus made by two parallel processes, one at AIIMS-Examination Section and second at TCS. The two were compared to ensure the fidelity of the process. Only when the two results matched, the final results were announced online. The result of AIIMS-MBBS 2016 was declared on 18.06.2016 as per pre-decided schedule mentioned in the prospectus in which Nikhil Bajiya and accused had secured 2nd and 14th rank respectively.
13. During investigation, it was revealed that accused applied online on 15.02.2016 for entrance examination of AIIMS MBBS 2016 and opted Kota as examination city. As per application, his candidate ID was 3011011929 and Registration No. 30007328. His correspondence address was Village Harpur, PO Birwa, PS Majhwalia, Bettiah, Bihar, India. He passed 12th Class from Delhi and obtained 72.75% marks in the examination.
14. During investigation, it was revealed that accused had taken print out of admit card on 28.05.2016 at 13.22.19 p.m. He was allotted Roll No. 6602441, Hall ticket No. 159445 and his examination centre was Maharishi Arvind International Institute of Technology IPA-I, RIICO Institutional Area, Ranpur, Kota, Rajasthan 325003. Examination timing was 3.00 PM to 6.30 PM. It had been written in the Admit card as important instructions that all electronic items, pen pencil, Paper (other than the Admit Card, photo ID and photograph) calculators, bags and bottles Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI 51/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:11:34 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 7 of 35 were prohibited and not allowed in the examination. It had also been written on the admit card that copy of questions was also strictly prohibited during the examination. Failure to comply with any of the above would be considered as use of unfair means and appropriate action will be taken.
15. During investigation, it was further revealed that accused had appeared in AIIMS Online Computer Base Test (CBT) MBBS Entrance Examination 2016 held on 29.05.2016 at 3.00 PM to 6.30 PM in Lab C, Room No. 222, Shift-II in Maharishi Arvind International Institute of Technology, Kota, Rajasthan. During the examination, he used one sheet for rough work and after the examination, the same sheet was taken back by the invigilator along with the admit card.
16. During investigation, it was revealed that candidate Nikhil Bajiya who had secured 2nd rank had also applied online on 15.02.2016 for entrance examination of AIIMS MBBS 2016 and opted Kota as examination city. As per application, his candidate ID was 3011005462 and Registration No. 30001175. His correspondence address was A-33, Bajiya House, Road No. 02, Mann Nagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. He passed 12th Class from Rajasthan and obtained 97.50% marks.
17. During investigation, it was revealed that Nikhil Bajiya had taken print out of admit card on 07/05/2016 at 09:53.28 a.m. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI 51/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla 16:11:51 +0545 RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 8 of 35 and was allotted Roll No. 6600838 with Hall ticket No. 159444 and his examination centre was also at Maharishi Arvind International Institute of Technology IPA 1, RIICO Institutional Area, Ranpur, Kota, Rajasthan PIN code 325003. Examination timing was 3.00 PM to 6.30 PM.
18. During investigation, it was revealed that during examination candidates were sitting as per their Hall Ticket Number and accused (Hall Ticket No. 159445) was sitting adjacent to another candidate namely Nikhil Bajiya (159444) in Lab C, Room No. 222, Shift II in Maharishi Arvind International Institute of Technology, Kota, Rajasthan. During the examination, all the computers were covered with the canopy (partition) which was provided by TCS for the examination purpose but canopies and monitors were not permanently fixed.
19. During investigation, it was revealed that during examination every action performed by candidates on computer from the first log-in to log-out were recorded in the system. These audit logs for every candidate were saved in the server and were collected from TCS alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which further revealed that out of 200 questions, Nikhil Bajiya had attempted total 192 questions and accused attempted 186 questions. Further, there were 167 questions for which Nikhil Bajiya and accused had selected the same options in which 153 questions were copied by accused Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 CBI 51/2019 16:11:57 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 9 of 35 from Nikhil Bajiya. Further, accused had attempted all sections in exactly same order and time as attempted by Nikhil Bajiya.
20. During investigation, it was revealed that accused had visited the questions so many times as compared to other candidate, which shows that he was searching for particular question before giving the final answer. Further, accused had made extraordinarily large number of mouse clicks during the exam i.e. 1227 and his rough sheet did not have sufficient work/calculation.
21. During investigation, it was revealed that accused had answered the questions in a very haphazard manner with large amount of time spent in jumping/visiting from question to question and he answered many questions in the physics and chemistry set in less than 10 seconds.
22. During investigation, it was further revealed that accused was answering the question in a sequence that was of Nikhil Bajiya rather than the sequence in which the question appeared to the accused even though the sequence of appearance of questions in each section was random and different for both of them. At one instance, accused changed the sections immediately after Nikhil Bajiya changed his section.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.07
16:12:03 +0545
CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 10 of 35
23. During investigation, it was revealed that out of 200 questions, 66 questions were attempted by accused in that very time frame in which Nikhil Bajiya answered the questions. Only 6 questions were answered by accused prior to Nikhil Bajiya, however, even these were re-visited after Nikhil Bajiya attempted the same. Nikhil Bajiya had given wrong answers of 12 questions which were also followed by the accused. Further, accused wrote the answer of 67 questions on the back side of the admit card and on rough sheet. Furthermore, questions involving calculations were attempted by accused without any calculation whereas the rough sheet of Nikhil Bajiya shows that he made calculation on the rough sheet.
24. During investigation, it was revealed that toughest component of examination was Physics Section. Nikhil Bajiya took 48 minutes and 53 seconds for answering Physics Section. However, accused took 7 minutes and 3 seconds to answer 37 question of Physics section. At many times, accused visited the same question many times but did not answer but when Nikhil Bajiya answered the question, he by using unlawful means copied the answer and saved the same. Accused has written answers of 21 questions out of 40 on the back side of the admit card and rough sheet.
25. During investigation, it was revealed that Nikhil Bajiya was a regular class room student of Allen Career Institute, Kota, Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI 51/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:12:12 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 11 of 35 Rajasthan. He had taken admission in Nurture Course in the year 2013-2014, Enthusiast Course in the year 2014-2015 and Achiever Course in the year 2015-2016. Accused had taken admission in Leader Course in the year 2012-2013. In the year 2014-2015, accused joined this Institute as DLP Students (Distance Learning Programme), however, in the year 2015- 2016, he was not enrolled in any course. In the periodical exams conducted by the coaching institute, Nikhil Bajiya secured 81 to 95% marks. Nikhil Bajiya was a famous student and everyone was confident that he will clear the exam. Nikhil Bajiya also secured 3rd position in NEET Exam. Per contra, accused was an average student with no calibre to clear the examination. Further, previously accused appeared in many exams but could not qualify the examination.
26. It is averred that the investigation establishes that accused had secured 14th rank in AIIMS MBBS Entrance Examination 2016 by using unfair means and tactic. Accordingly, the accused has been charged under Section 420 of IPC.
Arguments on behalf of Ld. PP for CBI
27. Ld. PP for the CBI has submitted that considering the facts and the role of the accused person, it is clear that offence as mentioned in the chargesheet was committed by him for which he is liable to be charged with. Ld. PP for CBI has relied upon Digitally signed by T T CBI 51/2019 PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla 16:12:19 +0545 RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 12 of 35 decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996 AIR 1744) and has argued that on the basis of the material placed on record, a case of charge under Section 420 of IPC exists. The IO, in his written submissions, has re-iterated the averments in the chargesheet.
28. During arguments, the Ld. PP for CBI has relied upon the statement of PW Anand Kirar which was recorded during investigation. PW Anand Kirar has stated that he noticed the candidate sitting next to Nikhil Bajiya had adjusted his monitor and revolving chair. He further stated that from that position, it appeared that the screen of the adjacent monitor could have been seen by him or he had adjusted monitor and chair to see the screen of Nikhil Bajiya. The Ld. PP for CBI has also argued that accused had scored poorly previously in AIIMS MBBS Entrance Examination and the accused could not even qualify AIPVT- 2016 (All India Pre-Veterinary Test). Consequently, it is argued that the accused did not have the academic capability to clear the AIIMS Entrance Examination. It is also argued that the Audit Log Report clearly indicates that the accused had adopted unfair means to clear the examination.
Arguments on behalf of accused
29. The averments of the Ld. Counsel for Accused as mentioned in his written submissions are - Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI T PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:12:27 +0545 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 13 of 35
a) Firstly, the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Nitin Srivastava dated 22.11.2016 (PW2) and one Deepak Prasad dated 22.11.2016 (PW3), both being officials of AIIMS, do not indicate any malpractice during the examination. Similarly, the statements of locally recruited invigilators namely Priyanka Sharma (PW7) and Mahesh Sharma (PW8) also do not indicate any malpractise or that the accused was found looking at the screen of the student sitting next to him.
b) Secondly, the accused applied for the examination on 15.02.2016 and opted for Kota as his examination center. As there were 4 different centers at Kota and till the date he got his admit card (i.e. 28.05.2016), he was not sure about the city and the exact center. It is averred that this cheating would have been possible only if facilitated by Nikhil Bajiya.
c) Thirdly, it is also argued that the Audit Log showing 167 answers of accused and Nikhil Bajiya being same is not indicative of any cheating as all the candidates would have selected the same answer which was the correct one.
d) Fourthly, there is no offense if the same sequence of answering questions has been followed by accused as that of Nikhil Bajiya, since the candidates were at liberty to approach the sequence on their own.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.07
CBI 51/2019 16:12:34 +0545
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 14 of 35
e) Fifthly, it is argued that the number of mouse clicks
cannot be said to constitute an offence. It is also argued that there are other candidates who have similar number of clicks and in this regard, it is pointed out that it is the admitted case of CBI that Ms. Neha Rajpurkar (Rank 43) had 988 mouse clicks, Mr. Rohit Sangwan (Rank 313) had 900 mouse clicks and Mr. Raghav Arora (Rank 1323) had 812 mouse clicks.
f) Sixthly, it is also argued that it is clear from the Audit Log that accused and Nikhil Bajiya were attempting different questions at the same time and the time taken for solving the questions were also different.
g) Seventhly, it is also argued that merely because the accused answered questions in physics and chemistry in less time does not create an offense against the accused as answering questions quickly in a competitive exam cannot be termed as an offense. Further, it is also argued that the analysis of CBI that accused spent only seven minutes and three seconds in the physics section is incorrect and misleading since actually accused spent 52 minutes to solve 40 questions in the physics section.
h) Eighthly, it is also argued that there is no provision in law which provides that in a competitive Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
CBI 51/2019 2026.02.07
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla 16:12:41 +0545
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 15 of 35
examination to arrive at any answer, a calculation is a must, failing which the candidate is liable to be tried in a court.
i) Ninthly, Nikhil Bajiya has denied knowing the accused and without his complicity, the alleged cheating could not have been conducted.
j) Finally, the statement of PW17 is unreliable as water bottles were not allowed in the Center and PW17 could not have gone to collect the same.
30. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the conclusion drawn by the CBI that 153 questions were copied by accused appears to be based on conjectures and surmises. It is also argued that the CBI, other than relying upon the Audit Log Report and internal inquiry report of AIIMS, has not conducted any independent investigation in the present matter.
Law relating to order on charge
31. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie material is to be seen. Law regarding consideration at the stage of framing charges is well settled now. The Court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused has been made out. When the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla T Digitally signed by T RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 16 of 35 PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:12:47 +0545 which has not been properly explained the court will be justified in framing charge. If on the basis of material available on record a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a provable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the courts were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame a charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence.
32. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Sanal and another (1979 3 SCC 4), it was held that:
"Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Digitally signed by T RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 17 of 35 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:12:54 +0545 satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the Prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
33. At the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt CBI 51/2019 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:13:02 +0545 RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 18 of 35 or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). At this stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
34. While deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the guilt or otherwise. This being the initial stage of the trial, the court is not supposed to decide whether the materials collected by the investigating agency provides sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate into his conviction. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.
35. Reliance is placed on Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar (1979 3 SCC 4); State of Maharashtra and others vs. Somnath Thapa and others (JT 1996 4 SC 615); State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh AIR (1977 SC 2018); Umar Abdula Sokoor Sorathia vs. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI 51/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:13:11 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 19 of 35 Intelligence officer, NCB (JT 1999 5 SC 394); and Kallu Mal Gupta vs. State (2000 I AD Delhi 107).
Findings of the Court
36. I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully gone through the record. I have also perused the compendium of case laws filed on behalf of the accused persons.
37. The ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of IPC are as follows:
a) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby;
b) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.Digitally signed by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.07
16:13:17 +0545
CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 20 of 35
38. Cheating is punishable under Section 420 where as a consequence of cheating, the person cheated is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
39. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraj vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2011 SC 2258), there has to be dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is the sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence.
40. The scope of investigation in the present matter has been succinctly mentioned in the concluding request of the Report of the Internal Investigation conducted by AIIMS (D-1) which is relevant and hence, reproduced and highlighted below:
"There is prima facie evidence that there is probability of using unfair means by the said candidate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla. It may also be necessary to investigate the entire trail including the possibility of the candidate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla knowing and therefore, taking advantage of the meritorious nature of the other candidate Mr. Nikhil Bajiya. It appears that Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla has either directly copied the answers from Nikhil Bajiya or may have used software or other means to access CBI 51/2019 Digitally signed by T CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 21 of 35
2026.02.07
16:13:28 +0545
the answers made Nikhil Bajiya. Involvement of invigilators and the Head of the Test Center needs to be investigated to confirm or rule out conspiracy to use unfair means during the online computer-based examinations. In case any additional material / evidence becomes available., it will be communicated to you."
41. The conclusion by AIIMS that "There is prima facie evidence that there is probability of using unfair means by the said candidate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla" has been arrived at from the analysis of the Audit Log Report and the background check of the accused with respect to his academic credential and ability. Therefore, the CBI was supposed to carry forward the initial work done by AIIMS internal inquiry and collect evidence to trace the entire trail which would show that the accused knew that he would be seated next to Nikhil Bajiya, to ascertain whether any software was used by the accused to copy from Nikhil Bajiya and to ascertain the involvement of invigilators / head of the test center. The moot question is whether from the material relied upon by prosecution, it could be prima facie said that the accused gave the exam with a dishonest intention to cheat as he knew that he would be seated next to Nikhil Bajiya and used some software to copy / directly copied from Nikhil Bajiya and that he was assisted by some unknown persons in the above? For the reasons discussed in detail below, it appears that a case for framing of charge is not made out: Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:13:35 +0545 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 22 of 35
a) Firstly, it is the admitted case of CBI that the whole procedure of registration and submission of online form was handled at the backend by M/s Nysa Communication Agency. The admit card of the valid application along with hall ticket number and allocated center were generated by examination section of AIIMS. The allocation of a specific center and hall ticket number is stated to have been done randomly through computer program by examination section as stated by PW Amrish Singh Gusain (Data Entry Operator, Examination Section, AIIMS) and PW Dr. Ashok Kumar Jaryal (Associate Dean, Examination Section, AIIMS). The officers posted in the examination section, AIIMS i.e. PW Bhupender Singh Bisht and PW Suresh Kumar have not stated that the Roll Numbers and centers allotted to the candidates could have been known by the said candidates by way of any leak of information prior to the exams. CBI ought to have further examined this angle as to who all conspired and enable accused to commit the purported cheating by informing him that he is being allotted a seat adjacent to Nikhil Bajiya. Therefore, even if the case of CBI is admitted that the accused copied from Nikhil Bajiya, accused could not have known his examination center as well as seating arrangement without active connivance of officials from AIIMS. It accordingly flows that CBI ought to have conducted investigation to identify the co-conspirators in order to make out a case Digitally signed CBI 51/2019 T by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:13:41 +0545 RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 23 of 35 against the accused. At this juncture, it is crucial to note that the present complaint was forwarded by AIIMS alongwith its internal inquiry report with a specific request to identify and to trace co-conspirator who could have enabled the accused to commit the purported cheating. In the current form, the chargesheet is totally silent as to how accused purportedly came to know his examination center/seating arrangement, thereby enabling him to have appeared for the examination with an intention to cheat from the very beginning.
b) Secondly, the other argument of the CBI is that the accused scored very poor in the AIIMS Entrance examination conducted in the year 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The said argument does not show any prima facie case against the accused as based on the said logic, a first-
time aspirant clearing a competitive exam ought to be looked at suspiciously. Further, no such analysis of past year performance has been conducted of other candidates who cleared the examination.
c) Thirdly, the CBI has not found any eye witness who could depose that accused cheated from Nikhil Bajiya. The statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e. one Nitin Srivastava dated 22.11.2016 and one Deepak Prasad dated 22.11.2016 both being the officials of the AIIMS do not indicate of any malpractise during the examination dated 29.05.2016. PW Priyanka Sharma has stated in her CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Digitally signed by T RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 24 of 35 PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI T Date: 2026.02.07 16:13:47 +0545 statement recorded during investigation that it was her responsibility to ensure that candidates do not talk to each other. She has further stated that she did not notice any candidate copying answers from the computer screen of any other candidate. Whilst she has stated that computer screen of adjacent monitor of another candidate could be seen after adjusting chair, canopies and computer monitor, she has not stated that any such adjustments were made by any of the candidates in Room Number 222, second shift in Maharishi Arvind Institute of Technology, Kota, Rajasthan where the accused gave the exam. Similar statement has been given by PW Mahesh Kumar Sharma who was the second invigilator in the said room. CBI has placed on record the Approved Seating Plan (D-11) which shows the seating arrangement of the concerned examination hall. The invigilator was seated right behind the seats of accused and Nikhil Bajiya. Considering the proximity of seating of the candidates and the seat of the invigilator, it is impossible for the accused to have adjusted the canopy and the monitor without the knowledge of the invigilator. The CBI has repeatedly stressed that the PWs have stated that the chairs and canopies could be adjusted enabling a candidate to see the screen of adjacent monitor. However, just because the canopies could be adjusted, it cannot be insinuated that the accused adjusted his canopy and cheated from Nikhil Bajiya for the entire duration of Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
CBI 51/2019 2026.02.07
16:13:58 +0545
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 25 of 35
three hours without being noticed by the invigilator or other candidate especially in the absence of any supporting statement of foul play / untoward conduct by the invigilators who were seated closely behind the seats of accused and Nikhil Bajiya.
d) Fourthly, it is averred by the CBI that Nikhil Bajiya was a popular student and everyone in Kota knew that he will clear the entrance examination of MBBS and it is stated that accused also had the said knowledge of Nikhil's academic prowess. Nikhil Bajiya has feigned ignorance about accused. In his statement, Mr. Nikhil Bajiya has stated that he did not provide any help to the accused during the examination. It is typical to hear instances where some answers have been copied but that too requires the acquiescence of the candidate / person from whom answers have been copied. Could the accused have copied all the answers from Nikhil Bajiya without the connivance of Nikhil Bajiya or the invigilators as copying all the answers would entail accused looking into Nikhil's computer throughout the examination? Even if it is accepted that accused knew about Nikhil Bajiya, the cheating could have been occasioned only if accused knew that he was being seated adjacent to Nikhil Bajiya. As CBI has not traced any co-conspirator within AIIMS or the external agency, it is not trite to try the accused for an Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:14:04 +0545 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 26 of 35 offence which could have been committed only with active connivance of other persons.
e) Fifthly, in his statement, PW Anand Kirar has stated that, "During the examination, candidates were trying to adjust/remove the partition through which the monitors were covered/portioned or also trying to see the screen of adjacent computer to them". He has also stated that, "The candidates who was sitting next to Nikhil Bajiya, had adjusted his monitor towards himself and his revolving chair was also adjusted by him. It appeared that from that position, the screen of the adjacent monitor could have been seen by him or he has adjusted monitor and chair to peek the screen of Nikhil Bajiya." No supporting statement has been given by any of the invigilators. Further, it is not clear whether PW Anand Kirar was referring to the accused or the other candidate who would have been sitting on the other side of Nikhil Bajiya. Further, Ld. Counsel for accused has pointed out that whilst PW Anand Kirar has stated that he noticed the canopy / monitor adjustment while going to drink water from his bottle, no water bottle was allowed inside the hall. Further, even washroom breaks were mentioned in a log which was maintained by the invigilators and seized during investigation. The water break ought to have also been noted down and the invigilators have not stated that they remember said PW leaving the hall for drinking water.CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Digitally signed by T RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 27 of 35 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:14:45 +0545 Further, PW Anand Kirar has also stated that the examination candidates were trying to adjust the canopy and the said statement appears to be a generic one applicable to other candidates as well which is, to say the least, a reflection on the manner in which such a coveted exam appears to have been conducted and the seriousness with which the invigilators supervised the examination. The statement of said PW does not inspire confidence on account of being vague and inconsistent with the prosecution's version.
f) Sixthly, CBI, for reasons best known to them, has not investigated and tried to trace the person who sent the complaint to AIIMS. The IP address or the email ID was never traced by CBI to establish the identity of the person who filed the complaint against the accused. This line of investigation would have helped CBI to ascertain the veracity of the complaint and identify other co-
conspirators. Further, in the anonymous complaint dated 27.06.2016, it is mentioned by the complainant that he has evidence to show that accused had adopted unfair means. Investigation and tracing of the complainant could have helped CBI to ascertain the co-conspirators and in the absence of details of the co-conspirators, the chargesheet is hollow and does not make out a prima facie case against the accused.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07
16:14:52 +0545
CBI 51/2019
CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 28 of 35
g) Seventhly, with respect to the mouse clicks, the
report states that the accused had the highest number of activities i.e. 1227. It is also mentioned that Neha Rajpurkar, Rohit Sangwan and Raghav Arrora has 988, 900 and 812 activities. With respect to Neha Rajapurkar, it is stated that she attempted 195 questions within 1.5 hours and subsequently spent time in answering questions that were marked for review or were left unanswered. With respect to candidate Rohit Sangwan, it is stated that he attempted all 200 questions in 2.5 hours from start of the exam sequentially with just 4 navigation visit between questions with subsequent time being spent in reviewing answered questions in a sequential manner. With respect to candidate Raghav Arrora, it is stated that he attempted all 200 questions in 2 hours and 12 minutes in nearly sequential manner with few navigation actions to move from one set of questions to another and subsequent time was spent in reviewing the questions. As is clear from the report itself that mouse click logs are open to interpretation and the increased number of mouse clicks could be attributed to many reasons. The Report appears to have been made with a pre-conceived conclusion to show that the accused had cheated from Nikhil Bajiya.
h) Eighthly, it is averred by CBI that the Physics section was solved by the accused in 7 minutes and 5 seconds. It is stated that other candidates took 83.4 to CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 29 of 35 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:14:59 +0545 114.6 seconds to solve physics questions whereas accused took less than 5 seconds to 12 seconds per question. This analysis of CBI appears to be faulty. From the document D-13, it appears that accused spent time from 4:12 to 5:04 on Physics section which is about 52 minutes.
i) Ninthly, CBI has argued that the rough sheet of the accused did not have sufficient work/calculation. There was no requirement that for answering a question, work / calculation was mandatory. In objective multiple choice question papers, candidates are permitted to select answers without any corresponding calculation unlike subjective answers where step by step working is mandatory.
j) Finally, details of TCS Team which was designated at AIIMS for conducting the examination has been collected during investigation, however, they have not been joined in the investigation to determine whether any information leak was occasioned leading to the accused being aware of his seating next to Nikhil Bajiya prior to the examination. No inquiry in this regard has been conducted even with AIIMS Examination Department.
42. Can criminal proceedings be sustained where the incriminating evidence against the accused is only the Audit Log Report? The Audit Log Report has clearly identified that the accused attempted questions in the same sequence as Nikhil Bajiya, clicked the same answers as Nikhil Bajiya and in order to Digitally signed by T CBI 51/2019 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla 16:15:06 +0545 RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 30 of 35 effect such copying, did mouse clicks which was much higher than the average number of mouse clicks of a candidate who has secured a Rank in the examination. Whilst the Audit Log Report might indicate misconduct on behalf of the accused, the CBI cannot sustain a criminal case merely on the strength of the Audit Log Report. Acknowledging that Audit Log Report is not sufficient to suspend the accused, AIIMS sent the enquiry to CBI and did not take any action against the accused. In this background, where AIIMS has not suspended the accused on the basis of the Audit Log Report, can criminal trial be continued only on the basis of said Report?
43. Copying can be opportunistic or a pre-planned scheme to obtain admission by adopting illegal/unfair means. Where cheating is pre-planned and involves fraud, impersonation, forgery, organized rackets or use of illegal devices, criminal action is maintainable. This is not a case of personation of candidate or forgery of admit cards / documents. A case of personation is where one person gives the examination as another person (as in Anupam Ranjan vs. State (CBI) 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2299). This is a case alleging copying of entire answer sheet from another candidate. The Investigating Agency ought to have conducted investigation and unearthed conspiracy / organized crime affecting integrity of the examination as the accused could not have undertaken the alleged cheating of an entire answer Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.07 16:15:12 +0545 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 31 of 35 sheet for a continuous period of 3 hours without the assistance of other persons.
44. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (2000 4 SCC 168), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that dishonest / fraudulent intention has to be shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Mere subsequent conduct or wrong doing does not amount to cheating under IPC. The "property" which is alleged to have been delivered to the victim is the benefit of selection/appointment/seat. However, the accused has appeared in his own name with a valid admit card and then purported to have copied the answers which does not show dishonest intention from the beginning. In order to show this, the Investigating Agency ought to have collected evidence to prima facie show that deception was practiced upon AIIMS from the inception as the accused was leaked information regarding his seating arrangement. In fact, there is no material to even show mens reas as there is no material to show that accused was aware of the seating arrangement and appeared in the examination with an intent to cheat from Nikhil Bajiya and to consequently deceive AIIMS. A breach of rules or unethical conduct does not ipso facto constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC. Disciplinary misconduct cannot be criminalized unless statutory ingredients are met and prima facie material is placed by the Investigating Agency in this regard. Continuation of the proceedings and framing of charge would in fact, tantamount to abuse of process Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 CBI 51/2019 16:15:18 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 32 of 35 of law as even if the allegations are taken at face value, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out.
45. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited vs. State of Maharashtra (1972 3 SCC 282), it was held that the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore, it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy (AIR 1977 SC 1489), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "while considering whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possibly".
46. There is clear gap between the "inducement" and the "delivery of property". The invigilators have not caught the accused red-handed while committing cheating and have not reported to have seen any adoption of unfair means by the accused. Nikhil Bajiya, from whom the accused has purportedly copied for the entire duration of 3 hours, has feigned ignorance about the accused as well as his alleged conduct. For reasons discussed above, the statement of PW Anand Kirar cannot be relied upon being vague. Without an eye witness or physical evidence (like chits or devices or even CCTV footage) of active Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI 51/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.07 16:15:27 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 33 of 35 surreptitious viewing, the act of cheating is purported to be proved only by way of Audit Log Report. Further, as cheating always requires a design, the prosecution ought to have shown how though the seating was randomized, the accused knew that he was being seated adjacent to Nikhil Bajiya and therefore, appeared in the examination with an intention to copy from the very beginning. Further, as Nikhil Bajiya has stated that he was not aware of the cheating, an unilateral act of copying cannot be established only through circumstantial evidence. Criminal prosecution, in the absence of any evidence, cannot be sustained only basis identicality / similarity in responses / answers. The result similarity cannot prove the process of cheating i.e. actus reus. Similarity of answers proven by way of Audit Log Report without any corroborating evidence of how the communication / cheating happened, is insufficient for framing of charge. Even if all the prosecution's documents are taken at face value, they do not satisfy the ingredients of "deception" or "inducement" under Section 420 of IPC. In the absence of prima facie material showing "mens rea" and "actus reus", a charge of cheating based on suspicion/conjectures/surmises alone cannot be sustained.
47. It is settled law that the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 protects the accused from the prolonged harassment which is a necessary consequence of a protracted trial. If upon consideration of the record of the case and relied upon documents, submissions made on behalf of Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI CBI 51/2019 Date: 2026.02.07 16:15:37 +0545 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 34 of 35 accused and prosecution, the court is not convinced that there are sufficient grounds against the accused, then the court has to discharge the accused by recording its reasons for doing so. Furthermore, if the court finds that the charges so invoked against the accused in the chargesheet do not make out a prima facie case or not furnish basis for framing of charge, the court has no option but to discharge the accused.
48. In view of the discussions above and also considering the submissions on merits as well as on law argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused, no case is made out against accused. Hence, accused Sanjeev Kumar Shukla is hereby discharged of the offence under Section 420 IPC for which he has been summoned to face trial.
Digitally signed by TAnnounced in open Court T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on 07th day of February, 2026 2026.02.07 16:15:43 +0545 (T. Priyadarshini) CJM/RADC/New Delhi 07.02.2026 CBI 51/2019 CBI Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla RC 219/2016/E0017 Page No. 35 of 35