Smartwatch used to cheat in KPTCL exam: HC denies bail

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has denied bail to one of the accused in the KPTCL exam cheating case, in which 20 people have been accused. The HC said that granting bail to the accused will pose a threat to further investigation and tampering with prosecution witnesses.

The accused who approached the HC in the case was Somanagoud, 37, from Belagavi. He has been charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The original complaint in the case was filed by Sachin Shridhar Kamatar, an SDA in the PU Department.

He was appointed as the subject administrator for all government competitive exams in Chikkodi. On August 7, the government conducted competitive exams for the posts of junior grade assistants in KPTCL.

On August 9, he was informed that during the exams at JSS College, Gokak, one student was found cheating. The headmaster, the class supervisor, and members of the vigilance squad then checked the CCTV footage at the college. They found that one of the students had opened his smartwatch.

The class supervisor informed them that on exam day she had heard a beep sound and checked all students. One of them, Sidappa Kempanna Madihalli was behaving suspiciously. The student admitted that he had taken a photocopy of the question paper on his smartwatch and sent it to his friend Sanjeev through the Telegram app.

A complaint was filed, and the police investigation led to 20 people being accused in the question paper leak case. Somanagoud’s case in the HC was that he was not named in the complaint and FIR, but his name was added by the police in the charge sheet.

The HC noted, however, that the voluntary statements of the other accused showed that it was Somanagoud who had paid them for leaking the question paper. “Accused No.10 is the vice principal, accused No. 11 is the son of accused No.10, and accused No.12 is the supervisor in the concerned competitive exams.

The voluntary statements of accused Nos.10 and 11 revealed that they are in contact with this petitioner, and this petitioner has given them money for leakage of the question paper,” the HC recorded in its judgment.

Dismissing Somanagoud’s petition, the HC said, “There are serious accusations made against this petitioner and his involvement in the leakage of the question paper. Therefore, this petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a threat that he will hamper further investigation and tamper with prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.”