'Allegations Can't Be Accepted To Punish Accused Before Trial': Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Eight In OTET Paper Leak Case
The Orissa High Court on Thursday (March 05) granted bail to eight persons, including the Vice-President of the Board of Secondary Education (BSE), taken into custody for their alleged role in leaking the question papers of the Special Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test, 2025 (OTET) days before the examination was scheduled to be held.
Citing low prospect of early conclusion of the ongoing trial as well as long pre-trial detention of the accused, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held–
“Leakage of question paper before the exam is of course the hardest consequence that would befall on meritorious candidates, but accusation/allegation cannot be accepted at its face to punish an accused prior to the trial since the same is subject to proof in the trial and this is the precise reason for not to withheld bail to an accused as a pre-trial punishment”
The case revolves around serious allegations levelled against the accused persons for their alleged role in leaking the question papers of the OTET-2025, just days before the examination was scheduled to be held. It was alleged that one of the petitioners in collusion with another office staff secretly accessed the soft copy of the question papers from the laptop of the Vice President of the BSE, who was responsible for conducting the test smoothly.
It is further alleged that they subsequently took the soft copy in a pen-drive and extracted the same to JPEG format for taking print outs. They purportedly destroyed the pen-drive and circulated the print outs for illegal gains. The information about question leakage came to the knowledge of the authority just one day before the test for which the same had to be cancelled.
An FIR was registered and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed under Sections 49/61(2)/112(2)/238/303(2)/318/324(3)/336(3)/337/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 11(1) of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and Section 9 of the Orissa Conduct of Examinations Act, 1988.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, the Court acknowledged that the alleged act of the petitioners has caused loss not only to the State exchequer but also to the morale of meritorious candidates. However, it was of the view that the accused persons cannot be detained in custody on the basis of such unproved allegations as a form of pre-trial punishment. Thus, it held–
“True it is that, an allegation is always an allegation, but it cannot substitute the place of proof and unless the allegation is established in the trial in the standard of proof beyond unreasonable [sic] [all reasonable] doubt, the allegation has to be considered at its face only to find out any prima facie case, but law is also equally well settled that even on existence of prima facie case, a person accused of such offence can be granted bail provided the situation so demands and the accused therein has made out a case for grant of bail.”
Justice Satapathy referred to Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which says, “If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs”.
The Judge also underlined the liberalised regime brought in by Section 479 BNSS (akin to Section 436-A CrPC) which provides that when a person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law.
Additionally, the Court noted that out of 52 witnesses, merely 2 witnesses have been examined as of date. Therefore, there is a likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.
“In the aforesaid facts and discussion together with the conspectus of materials placed on record and taking into account the mode and manner of implication of the present petitioners and the exam having been cancelled and trial having already commenced with examination of the informant and one witness in the meantime and there being unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits each of the petitioners to bail, but subject to certain conditions.”
Though bail was granted to all the eight petitioners, the BSE was cautioned not to grant any confidential assignment to them.
Case Title: Ramjee Prasad Gupta v. State of Odisha and tagged matters
Case No: BLAPL Nos. 9007, 9066, 9108, 9227, 9235, 9246, 9656, 9685 of 2025
Date of Order: March 05, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Das, Advocate; Mr. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. P. Agrawal, Advocate; Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate; Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate; Mr. Debsnan Das, Advocate; Mr. Dhananjay Mund, Advocate; Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Bharat Jalli, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 31