Guwahati, March 24: In a significant legal development, the Gauhati High Court on Monday granted interim bail to Mahbubul Hoque, the Chancellor of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), in connection with Dhekiajuli PS case No. 55/2025. The case was filed 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 the interim relief upon the furnishing of a surety of Rs. 50,000, along with another surety of an equal amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhekiajuli. The court imposed several conditions on Hoque, requiring him to fully cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer as and when required. Additionally, the court directed that Hoque must not, directly or indirectly, induce, threaten, or attempt to influence any individual acquainted with the facts of the case.
While granting interim bail, the court noted that the petitioner had established a strong case for relief. However, as a precautionary measure, the court ordered a review of the case diary on April 9 before making a final decision.
The court raised questions regarding the jurisdictional validity of the present case, noting that the primary cause of action originated under Patharkandi Police Station rather than Dhekiajuli Police Station. The judge observed that the FIR appeared to be based on the same cause of action as two previous cases filed under Patharkandi PS (case No. 54/2025 and case No. 55/2025). The court further highlighted discrepancies in the state’s filing of affidavits, pointing out that the authorities did not disclose the registration of the present case despite its earlier filing.
In a noteworthy development, the informant in the case had previously filed an affidavit before the trial court, stating that he had no objection to Hoque being granted bail. He asserted that he had lodged the FIR under undue influence and due to a misunderstanding of facts. The court acknowledged this affidavit but exercised caution, stating that such documents must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The court also flagged potential procedural lapses in the investigation, noting that the case had been assigned to an officer below the rank mandated under Section 12 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The law specifies that only officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) should handle such investigations. The court remarked that it was unclear whether the state authorities had reassigned the case to a qualified officer.
Hoque’s arrest stemmed from allegations of large-scale examination malpractices involving students at Central Public School (CPS), Patharkandi, during the Class 12 CBSE Physics examination. According to the FIR, 214 students enrolled at CPS, Patharkandi, had never attended classes there but instead studied under USTM’s Vision-50 coaching program. Allegations surfaced that these students had been promised assistance during examinations in exchange for payments of up to Rs. 5,00,000 per student. When such assistance was not provided, a law-and-order situation allegedly ensued.
Hoque was taken into custody on February 22 and remained in judicial custody until his interim bail was granted. Earlier, in the two Patharkandi cases, Coordinate Benches of the Gauhati High Court had granted him bail on March 3 and 11.
During the bail hearing, Hoque’s legal team—comprising Senior Advocates A M Bora, D K Baidya, and M S Hussain, along with Mr. V A Chowdhury—argued that the third FIR was a violation of legal principles. They contended that multiple FIRs cannot be lodged for the same cause of action and that the subsequent FIR should be treated merely as a 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 defense emphasized that suppression of a subsequent FIR at the time of a bail hearing could render the accused a free citizen. They further pointed out that the Assam government’s Additional Secretary, in an affidavit filed on March 7, objected to Hoque’s bail without mentioning the present FIR, even though it 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 more conclusive determination regarding Hoque’s bail. Meanwhile, the case continues to raise legal and procedural questions, particularly regarding jurisdictional conflicts, the legitimacy of multiple FIRs, and potential lapses in the investigation process.
