Judgment M. M. Kumar. J. 1. This petition filed under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr. P. C) by one Parveen Kumar seeks his pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No.314 dated 20.8.2003 registered under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B, IPC at Police Station, Sector, 11, Chandigarh. His prayer has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 13.9.2003 particularly on the ground that he appeared in the H. C. S. (Executive) examination and organised an impersonator to write the examination paper for him and his custodial interrogation was necessary. 2. The allegations in the First Information Report disclosed that on 20.8.2003, the petitioner was to appear for his H. C. S. (Executive) examination held by the Haryana Public Service Commission at Lajpat Rai Bhawan, 4th Floor, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. He was to take the paper of English Compulsory from 9.30 to 12.30 p. m. for H. C. S. (Executive) Branch, Main Examination, 2003. One Dheeraj Kumar son of Gauri Shanker was found to be impersonating the petitioner and he disclosed the reason for impersonating. According to Dheeraj Kumar the petitioner had promised to pay some money in consideration of impersonating and writing the English paper for him. The impersonator was handed over to the police. 3. Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has illegally rejected his prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail by assuming the ground that the investigating agency is to obtain his specimen signatures/handwriting. According to the learned Counsel, it cannot constitute the basis for deciding pre-arrest bail to the petitioner because it has been held by the Supreme Court that no one can be forced to give his specimen handwriting because it would be self-incriminatory as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarpradesh V/s. Ram Babu Misra. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel at some length, perusing the First Information Report and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I have reached the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of pre-arrest bail because the menace of malpractices in the competitive exami-nation has been on the rise and it would not be in the public interest to deal with these types of crimes leniently. The consequences of malpractice indulged in by the petitioner has wide ramification because had he succeeded in his endeavour, then those who have burnt midnight oil would have lost the chance. Such a meritorious candidate in comparison to the petitioner would feel frustrated resulting into perverse tendencies which is undesirable. In State of AP. V/s. Vimal Krishna Kundu and Another, the Supreme Court refused the pre-arrest bail because the accused had leaked out the question paper for a crucial examination conducted by the Public Service Commission and the Board of Intermediate Examination. Rejecting the view taken by the High Court and holding that the cushioned order of pre-arrest bail could not have been passed, Their Lordships observed as under: We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under Sec.438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the respondent, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well orchestrated cons-piracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on the career of millions of students, learned Single Judge should not have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thought-fully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through Sec.438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order. 5. The argument that the petitioner cannot be forced to give his simple handwriting as observed by the Additional Sessions Judge has not impressed me because in paragraph 2 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed in Ram Babu Misras case (supra), that the Magistrate can always issue directions to the accused to give his specimen handwriting when the case is under investigation and the same would be in the interest of administration of justice. However, the contention that such power is drawn from Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (brevity, the Act) was rejected because it was held by Their Lordships that Sec.73 of the Act enabled the Court to direct any person present in Court to give specimen writings for the purposes of enabling the Court to compare such writing with the alleged writing written by the person. Therefore, the aforementioned argument cannot be made the basis for allowing the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. Hence, the argument is liable to be rejected. For the reasons, recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.