The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to two accused, Robin Singh alias Robin and Neeraj Kumar Dhanak, in the case concerning the leak of CSIR-UGC NET examination question papers, in two separate orders arising from the same FIR.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, "The object of bail is to secure the attendance of an accused person in his trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be avoided unless the Court has reasons to believe that an accused will not be available to have trial. A man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty and punishment begins after conviction. Though, seriousness of the charge is a relevant consideration, it is not the only test or factor."

The Court added, it would be improper for this Court to refuse bail only on the nature of allegations, when co-accused Sachin, against whom identical allegations were levelled has been allowed regular bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat vide order dated 20.03.2026.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Gohana, Sonepat under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 238(B) and 61 BNS and Sections 10 and 11 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, arose from a police operation based on secret information that question papers of the CSIR-UGC NET Examination (scheduled for 18.12.2025) were being leaked in exchange for ₹3-4 lakh per student. Police monitored a Tempo Traveller that picked up students near N.C. College and took them to "Narwal Kabaddi Academy."

On raiding the premises, police found students in two rooms, with Neeraj Kumar Dhanak allegedly explaining the paper to them and Sachin also present. Neeraj allegedly disclosed that he received the question paper from his brother Dheeraj via mobile phone, printed it, and supplied it to 16 Chemistry and 21 Life Sciences students, with associates Pawan and Ashish having contacted the students. Question paper sets, a laptop, printers and mobile phones were recovered from the spot.

Robin Singh's Case 

Robin Singh was not named in the FIR or found at the spot; he was implicated solely on co-accused Ashish's disclosure statement, with the sole allegation being that he provided the physical space (an under-renovation college building co-owned by six persons, including his wife) where the offence allegedly occurred. His counsel argued he was unaware of the purpose for which the building would be used, that co-accused Sachin (arrested at the spot) had already been granted bail, and that he had been in custody for over seven months with the challan already presented on 03.02.2026 and trial likely to take long.

The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and alleging he was a member of the paper-leak syndicate.

The Court noted Robin Singh was neither named in the FIR nor present at the spot, with his role confined to allegedly arranging the venue based on a co-accused's disclosure statement; that he had been in custody since 20.01.2026 (over 7 months 18 days); that investigation was complete but none of the 23 witnesses (police officials) had been examined; and that he had a fixed abode with no apprehension of evasion or witness influence. The petition was allowed, and Robin Singh was ordered released on regular bail.

Neeraj Kumar Dhanak's Case

Unlike Robin Singh, Neeraj Kumar was allegedly the person found at the spot explaining the question paper to students and was described by the State as the "prime member" of the syndicate, from whom mobile phones, laptops, printers and question paper sets were recovered. His counsel argued that co-accused Sachin — against whom identical allegations were levelled — had already been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat on 20.03.2026; that the recovered question paper did not actually tally with the paper used in the CSIR-UGC NET exam conducted on 18.12.2025; that investigation was complete with none of 23 witnesses examined; and that he had been in custody for over 10 months.

The State strongly opposed bail, emphasizing his direct involvement and the gravity of the offence against aspiring students' futures.

The Court reiterated settled principles on the object of bail, noting the completed investigation, unexamined witnesses (all police officials whom the petitioner was in no position to influence), his fixed abode, clean antecedents, and lack of involvement in any other case, the Court granted him regular bail as well.

In both matters, the Court allowed the bail petitions without commenting on the merits of the case, directing release of the petitioners on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Mr.HemantBassi,Sr.Advocatewith Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate and

Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana.

Click here to read order

Click here to read order