The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by Dhananjay Nivrutti Lokhande, an accused in the NEET-UG paper leak case, challenging the legality of his arrest. A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected the petition, observing that it constituted an abuse of the abuse of process of law and was absolutely meritless.
The court noted that Lokhande had been arrested on May 13 and had subsequently sought a copy of the arrest memo from the trial court. His application for the memo was dismissed by the trial court on August 22. He challenged that dismissal before the High Court, contending that his arrest was illegal in the absence of an arrest memo.
In response, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the High Court that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to Lokhande at the time of arrest and that the information had also been conveyed telephonically. The CBI clarified that while a formal arrest memo may not have been supplied, the essential particulars of the arrest were communicated to the accused.
The bench further observed that Lokhande had also sought his immediate release on the ground of non-supply of the arrest memo. However, the court found no merit in this contention, especially in light of the CBI’s clarification regarding the communication of arrest grounds.
The trial in the case is being conducted before a designated fast-track court handling criminal cases arising from paper leaks and the use of unfair means in public examinations. Special Judge Ajay Gupta had taken cognisance of the CBI’s final report against 13 accused persons on August 12.
The NEET-UG examination held on May 3 was cancelled by the National Testing Agency on May 12 following allegations of a paper leak. A re-examination was subsequently conducted on June 21.
Dismissing the plea, the Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on Lokhande, directing that the amount be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Fund. The bench emphasized that the petition lacked legal merit and was an improper use of judicial process.
The court’s order underscores the sufficiency of communicated grounds of arrest even in the absence of a formal memo, particularly when the investigating agency has affirmed that the accused was informed of the reasons for his detention both orally and through available records.
The disposition reflects the court’s reluctance to entertain technical challenges that delay proceedings in serious cases involving public examination malpractice, especially when the accused has been apprised of the case against him through alternative means.
The ruling reaffirms that non-production of an arrest memo, by itself, does not vitiate an arrest if the accused has been made aware of the grounds of detention, and that such pleas, when devoid of substance, may attract costs to discourage misuse of legal remedies.