Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, on 10th July 2025, declined anticipatory bail to an individual accused in a criminal case involving the alleged leak of public examination question papers via a YouTube channel. The Court held that the seriousness of the allegations, particularly the leak of multiple subject papers just before public examinations, warranted custodial interrogation. Observing that the petitioner could not be shielded from arrest under such circumstances, the Court dismissed the bail application while permitting the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail thereafter.

The Court explicitly recorded that custodial interrogation was essential due to the gravity and mode of the alleged offense. The petitioner, who according to the prosecution is not a peon but a teacher actively running an educational YouTube channel, was implicated for offenses under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court clarified that anticipatory bail could not be granted in the face of such serious charges involving life imprisonment and potential abuse of a digital platform for public examination misconduct. The application was thus dismissed, with liberty granted to pursue regular bail upon surrender.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Petrol Pump NOC | Finds Environmental Plea Filed To Serve Rival Business Interest | Imposes ₹50,000 Costs For Suppressing Parallel High Court Proceedings

The petitioner, who is the fifth accused in Crime No. 2097 of 2024 registered by the Kozhikode Crime Branch, approached the High Court of Kerala seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations pertain to the leak of question papers for public examinations, specifically the English and Social Science papers of the 10th standard and the mathematics paper of Plus One, allegedly disseminated through a YouTube channel named "M.S. Solutions."

The petitioner was implicated along with other accused persons, based on the investigation conducted by the CBCID, Kozhikode. The case was originally brought before the District and Sessions Court, Manjeri, which had declined to grant relief in Crl.MC No. 501 of 2025, through an order dated 28.05.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner sought recourse from the High Court.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, contrary to his claim of being a school peon, was in fact a Mathematics teacher who was running the YouTube channel "M.S. Solutions". According to the prosecution, the leak occurred on the eve of the public examination, severely compromising the sanctity of the academic evaluation process.

The petitioner submitted through his counsel that the allegations were baseless and denied having any role in the alleged crime. It was argued that he was merely a peon in the school and did not have access to confidential materials such as question papers. Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the accusation lacked factual foundation and insisted on the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Furthermore, the petitioner assured the Court of his readiness to appear before the Investigating Officer if summoned and to comply with any condition the Court may deem fit. He also indicated his willingness to respond to any notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In opposition, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner was not a peon, as claimed, but a teacher responsible for Mathematics instruction. The Prosecutor stated the seriousness of the offense, including the use of a digital platform to leak examination papers and the inclusion of charges punishable with life imprisonment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution listed the statutory provisions under which the case was registered, which included: Sections 316(2), 316(3), and 316(5); Sections 318(2) and 318(4); Section 61(2)(a); Section 112(1)(2); Section 283 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

These sections collectively pertain to various criminal offenses, including tampering with public examination processes, unauthorized disclosure of official documents, criminal conspiracy, and related offenses.

The petitioner’s contention revolved around a denial of any connection to the alleged leak. He maintained that he had neither custody of nor access to any question papers, and that he was not involved in any online dissemination of examination content.

In contrast, the prosecution asserted that the investigation had unearthed evidence linking the petitioner with the leaked materials uploaded to the YouTube channel. The authorities stated the possibility of a wider conspiracy involving individuals with insider access to examination materials.

In sum, the prosecution stressed the potential for further investigative leads if custodial interrogation were permitted, and warned that granting anticipatory bail might impede the progress of the investigation.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing the bail application, recorded that the petitioner had sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. After noting the statutory basis of the application, the Court proceeded to evaluate the factual contentions raised by both sides.

The Court stated in "Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is only a Peon in the School, the same is controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor pointing out that he is a Mathematics Teacher."

It further observed, in reference to the allegations: "Since the allegations against the petitioner are serious, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary."

In assessing the claim that the petitioner had no access to question papers, the Court noted the prosecution's contention that the petitioner had been identified as managing and conducting classes via a YouTube channel titled "M.S. Solutions," through which the leak was facilitated.

Addressing the scope of the offense and the stage of investigation, the Court recorded:
"Taking note of the nature of allegations, especially since the question papers of three subjects are stated to have been leaked on the eve of public examination, that too, through a Youtube channel, I am of the view that petitioner cannot be protected with an order of anticipatory bail."

With regard to the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, the Court recognized the petitioner’s stated readiness to respond to investigation notices but held that such willingness did not outweigh the need for custodial interrogation.

The Court considered that the offense attracted provisions carrying life imprisonment and recorded: "It was also submitted that the offences for imprisonment for life is also alleged and, therefore, the allegation being serious, custodial interrogation of petitioner is required."

In balancing the liberty of the individual with the requirement of an effective investigation, the Court found the latter to be of overriding importance in this instance.

Also Read: Bengaluru’s Century Club Built On Land Granted By Maharaja In 1913 | Karnataka High Court Declares It Public Authority Under RTI Act Due To Substantial State Financing

The High Court ultimately dismissed the bail application but provided the petitioner an opportunity to pursue regular bail in a specific manner.

The Court stated: "However, if in case petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer on 18.07.2025 and if in case, after interrogation, the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner, then, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day itself and if any bail application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law."

"Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri. S. Rajeev, Sri. V.V. Vinay, Sri. M.S. Aneer, Shri. Sarath K.P., Shri. Anilkumar C.R., Shri. K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Smt. Dipa V., Shri. Akash Cherian Thomas

For the Respondents: Sri. Prasanth M.P., Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Zainul Abideen Karumbil v. State of Kerala & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:51437

Case Number: B.A. No. 7353 of 2025

Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas