S.D.Anand, J. - (1.) The petitioner is Principal of the Institute of Management and Technology, Faridabad. In that capacity, he was custodian of the relevant sealed packets of question papers for first semester of M.B.A. Examination which was to be held on 28.12.2005. The institute, of which the petitioner is the Principal, was one of the Examination Centres for purposes of the paper IBE. The University got information that the paper had been leaked out at Faridabad. On ascertainment of facts, it was found that Satinder Sheoran son of Sher Singh, a student of first year of National Institute of Law, Faridabad, was selling the question paper aforementioned to the students of Faridabad, who were studying for their ME Programme on 27.01.2005. The residential address and the landline/mobile telephone numbers of the above person were ascertained as under:- '0125-222712, 09315630535 and 09313579241.' It also transpired that it was the same person, who had been arrested by the police last year for leaking out a particular paper of MD University, Rohtak. The packets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal (for short `FSL') by the University. It recorded a report that there was no tampering with the seal impressions. However, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh (for short `CFSL') recorded a finding to the contrary. On factual front, it was found that out of seven seals on the packet containing question paper, there was a crack in one of the seals.
(2.) In support of the bail plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Investigating Agency did not find anything incriminating against the petitioner and it was on that account only that it (Investigating Agency) had submitted a cancellation report on 03.06.2006. However, that averment does not advance the petitioner's plea any further in view of the own stance of the petitioner in the bail application itself that he had no idea whether the cancellation report submitted by the police had been approved by the Superintendent of Police or not. On his own showing, he had also no idea whether the cancellation report had been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction or not.
(3.) In that view of things, the petitioner cannot draw any sustenance, for the grant of relief, upon the fact of alleged cancellation report.;