Gauhati HC grants interim bail to USTM Chancellor Mahbubul Hoque in CBSE exam fraud case

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaMarch 24, 2025

The Gauhati High Court on Monday granted interim bail to Mahbubul Hoque, Chancellor of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), in connection with Dhekiajuli PS case No. 55/2025. The case was registered under Sections 318(4)/316(5)/336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 11(1) of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria granted interim bail upon the furnishing of a surety of Rs. 50,000 along with another surety of an equal amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhekiajuli. The court imposed strict conditions on Hoque, requiring him to fully cooperate with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer when required, and refrain from influencing any individuals connected to the case.

While granting bail, the court noted that Hoque had made a strong case for relief but opted for a cautious approach by calling for a review of the case diary on April 9. The court raised concerns about the jurisdictional validity of the case, emphasizing that the primary cause of action originated under Patharkandi Police Station, not Dhekiajuli Police Station. The judge observed that the FIR appeared to be based on the same cause of action as two previous cases registered under Patharkandi PS (case No. 54/2025 and case No. 55/2025). The court also highlighted inconsistencies in the state’s affidavits, noting that the authorities did not disclose the present case’s registration promptly.

A significant aspect of the case is that the informant had previously filed an affidavit before the trial court stating that he had no objection to Hoque being granted bail, claiming the FIR was lodged due to undue influence and a misunderstanding of facts. The court acknowledged the affidavit but maintained that such documents must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Further, the court identified procedural lapses in the investigation, pointing out that the case was assigned to an officer below the rank mandated under Section 12 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The law requires an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) to oversee such investigations. The court questioned whether the state authorities had reassigned the case to a qualified officer.

Hoque was arrested over allegations of large-scale examination malpractices at Central Public School (CPS), Patharkandi, during the Class 12 CBSE Physics exam. According to the FIR, 214 students enrolled at CPS, Patharkandi, never attended classes there but studied under USTM’s Vision-50 coaching program. Allegations suggest that these students were promised assistance during the exams in exchange for payments of up to Rs. 5,00,000 per student. When the alleged assistance was not provided, a law-and-order situation reportedly arose.

Hoque was taken into custody on February 22 and remained in judicial custody until the High Court’s interim bail order. Previously, in the two Patharkandi cases, Coordinate Benches of the Gauhati High Court granted him bail on March 3 and 11.

Hoque’s legal team—comprising Senior Advocates A M Bora, D K Baidya, and M S Hussain, along with V A Chowdhury—argued that registering multiple FIRs for the same cause of action was legally untenable. They contended that the third FIR should be treated as a mere statement under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Uday Chand & Ors. vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J&K & Ors. (1983) 2 SCC 417, the defence emphasized that suppression of a subsequent FIR during a bail hearing could render the accused a free citizen. They also pointed out that an affidavit filed by the Assam government’s Additional Secretary on March 7 objected to Hoque’s bail but failed to mention the present FIR, which had been registered on February 24—an omission they argued violated constitutional mandates.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 9, when it will review the case diary and make a final determination on Hoque’s bail status. Meanwhile, the case continues to spark legal and procedural debates over jurisdictional conflicts, multiple FIRs, and investigation irregularities.