ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.RC2212024E005/EO-III/ND of 2024 registered with CBI/EO-III/New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) r/s. 409, 420, 477(A), 511, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned senior counsel Mr. J.M. Panchal with learned advocate Mr. Rajvi Patel appearing for the applicant has submitted that in the present offence, the investigation is over and Charge-sheet is filed. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 29.06.2024 and since then the applicant is in custody. The period of more than 6 months has passed after the arrest of the present applicant. He has further submitted that after arrest of the present applicant in connection of the present offence, the Charge-sheet came to be filed against him and it was only on the day prior to filing of the Charge-sheet that the statement of one witness Vishnubhai Sharma came to be recorded by the Investigating Agency who had stated in his statement that he had contacted the present applicant for NEET Examination in the year 2023. The present offence pertains to NEET Examination in the year 2024. There is no reference whatsoever as regards the role of the applicant in the present offence pertaining to NEET Examination of 2024. He has further submitted that the witnesses on whose statement the prosecution seeks to rely had earlier given their statements before the Investigating Officer wherein there was no allegation worth the name in commission of offence against the present applicant and it was in their second statement that the applicant was attributed role in commission of the offence. The conduct on the part of the Investigating Agency in recording further statement of the witnesses amongst nothing but to fill the lacuna in the prosecution case. He has submitted that upon consideration of material available on record, there is no material indicating that the present applicant either having demanded or received any money from any parents or students. The other co-accused whose application has been dismissed by this Court stand altogether on different footing than the present applicant as certain amount in cash as well as blank cheques were found from their possession. Nothing of the sort has been recovered from the present applicant. The other co-accused whose application has been dismissed by this Court stand altogether on different footing than the present applicant as certain amount in cash as well as blank cheques were found from their possession. Nothing of the sort has been recovered from the present applicant. He has, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned advocate Mr. R. C. Kodekar appearing for the respondent CBI has opposed the present application, inter-alia, contending that the present applicant was a Chairman of the institute where the examinations for NEET were conducted. He has further submitted that it was large scale conspiracy hatched by the accused including the present applicant for commission of offence and as a part of the said conspiracy, the candidates who were to appear in the NEET Examination, were asked to mention their domicile to Gujarat and were also asked to show some address of Gujarat in their application form and they were further asked to choose Godhara as a centre for appearing in the examination in question and resultantly, those students were assigned the centre at Godhara for appearing in the examination and that too, in the institute of which the applicant was Chairman. The applicant was running two institutes out of which only one was situated in Panchmahal district while the other institute in Kheda District and despite the same, both the institutes were earmarked to be the centre for examination in Panchmahal district. The applicant herein also got the other co-accused appointed as Deputy Centre Superintendent for the said examination who had played pivotal role in commission of offence in question. He has further submitted that the material available on record indicates that the applicant herein was approached by the parents to several candidates and it was decided between them that the applicant would help them get good marks in the NEET Examination for which those parents / students were to pay amount of Rs.20-25 Lakhs. Thus, there is strong a prima facie case against the present applicant for commission of offence in question. He has, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the present applicant is serious in nature. Thus, there is strong a prima facie case against the present applicant for commission of offence in question. He has, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the present applicant is serious in nature. Learned APP has further submitted that the allegations which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents produced on record. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.05.2024, the examination of NEET was scheduled to take place. Prior to commencement of the said examination, some secret information was received by the District Magistrate, Panchmahal, Godhara that the accused were planning to commit some irregularities in the said examination at Jay Jalaram School at Godhara which was the centre for the said examination. On the basis of the said information, the District Education Officer visited the school in question where the co-accused was found present. The District Education Officer seized his mobile phone and certain objectionable material was found from the mobile phone from which it was revealed that a large scale conspiracy had been hatched for doing an illegal favour to certain candidates who were to appear in the said examination. 6. The applicant herein happened to be Chairman of the two institutes where the NEET Examination in the year 2024 was to be conducted. Out of the two institutes, one institution was though situated in the district Kheda, came to be designated as a centre for the NEET Examination 2024 for Panchmahal district. As per the regulation under which the NEET Examination is conducted, for the institute to be designated as a centre for the examination in a particular district, the said institute is required to be situated in the district concerned. Admittedly, one of the two institutes in question of which the applicant herein is Chairman, though was not situated in Panchmahal District, had been selected as a centre for the exam. The material available on record indicates that this was managed by the present applicant and the other co-accused by resorting some maneuvering. Admittedly, one of the two institutes in question of which the applicant herein is Chairman, though was not situated in Panchmahal District, had been selected as a centre for the exam. The material available on record indicates that this was managed by the present applicant and the other co-accused by resorting some maneuvering. Thereafter, the co-accused Tushar Bhatt who was working as a teacher with one Gyan Mandir Career Institute which was a private coaching class and was not associated with Jay Jalaram School, Godhara, was appointed as Deputy Centre Superintendent for the examination. Again, for him to be appointed as such, it was projected that he was a teacher and supervisor of Jay Jalaram School, Godhara as he could not have been appointed as Deputy Centre Superintendent at Jay Jalaram School, Godhara, if he was not in any manner associated with the said school. This maneuvering was again done at the instance of the present applicant. 7. After having managed the aforesaid things, the parents / students were contacted and they were assured that the students who agreed for the deal would be done a favour and it would be managed that they get good marks in the NEET Examination enabling them to secure admission in Government Medical Collages and as per the deal, those students were required to pay the amount ranging Rs.20 to 25 Lacs for the said purpose.The students in question were thereafter instructed to attempt only those questions of which they were sure and leave the other questions blank and the answers to the other questions would be marked in their answer sheets after the examination is over. Those students, though were not having domicile in Gujarat were asked to mention their address to be of Gujarat in the application form in the NEET Examination and were also instructed to select Godhra as the centre for NEET Examination and those students were assigned centre in the institute belonging to the present applicant. This maneuvering and management would not be possible without the active involvement of the present applicant being a Chairman of the institutes. The material collected during the course of Investigation also indicates that the applicant herein himself had come into contact with several parents / students and had promised them of helping in securing good marks in the NEET Examination. This maneuvering and management would not be possible without the active involvement of the present applicant being a Chairman of the institutes. The material collected during the course of Investigation also indicates that the applicant herein himself had come into contact with several parents / students and had promised them of helping in securing good marks in the NEET Examination. It is sought to be contended on the part of the applicant that by recording further statement of several witnesses, an attempt is being made to plug the holes in the prosecution case. Be that as it may, it is not the stage for this Court to appreciate the evidence. It would be for the learned trial court to take its own call independently on this aspect while appreciating the evidence at the end of trial. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this Court is not inclined to use its judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is dismissed.