‘Munnabhai MBBS': CBI books Rajasthan man for appearing as proxy in NEET-UG 2023 exam
In a case of real life drawing inspiration from celluloid, a medical student allegedly appeared as a proxy for a candidate in the NEET-UG 2023 exam, resulting in the latter's admission to the MBBS course, à la "Munnabhai MBBS". The federal probe agency has booked both under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.(PTI)
Officials on Monday said the CBI has booked Vikash, a resident of Rajasthan's Jalore district, who allegedly appeared for Praveen Godara of Jodhpur in the NEET-UG held on May 7, 2023, at the Kendriya Vidyalaya in Sector 12, Dwarka, here.
Godara has also been named as an accused in the FIR.
Vikash, who was in the second year of his MBBS course at Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Medical College in Sirohi, allegedly mimicked Godara's signature and handwriting on the NEET-UG 2023 attendance and answer sheets, the officials said.
He allegedly went on to qualify for the examination as a proxy, securing a seat for Godara in the MBBS course at the Government Institute of Medical Sciences in Uttar Pradesh's Noida.
"It has also been ascertained that both are presently pursuing the MBBS course at their respective medical colleges," an official said.
The federal probe agency has booked them under Indian Penal Code sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 419 (cheating by impersonation), and 467 (forgery), among others, and corresponding Sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the FIR stated.
NEET-UG is conducted by the National Testing Agency for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH and other related courses in government and private institutions in which millions of students appear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Hisar court extends Jyoti Malhotra's judicial custody
Hisar court on Monday extended the judicial custody of YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra, who is under investigation for alleged espionage links with Pakistan, by another two weeks. The next date of hearing is July 7. On June 9, the court extended her judicial custody by two weeks till June 23. On May 26, Jyoti was sent to 14-day judicial custody by the court. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) Travel blogger Jyoti, 33, a resident of Hisar, was arrested on May 16 for allegedly sharing sensitive information with Pakistani operatives. Her lawyer, Kumar Mukesh, said Jyoti joined court proceedings virtually and her judicial custody was extended by 14 days. 'Earlier, her bail application was rejected by judicial magistrate first class Sunil Kumar on June 12. We will file a bail application in the district sessions court. It's a normal process to bring her to court after 14 days and extend the judicial custody until she gets a regular bail,' he added. On June 9, the court extended her judicial custody by two weeks till June 23. On May 26, Jyoti was sent to 14-day judicial custody by the court. Earlier, her lawyer Kumar Mukesh said that he had objected to the sections imposed against Jyoti Malhotra in the first information report (FIR). 'As the investigation is currently underway in the case, the police were against her bail plea. After hearing both sides, the court rejected the bail plea. She went to Pakistan High Commission in Delhi in 2023 and at that time, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was in force but the Hisar police booked her under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, which was Section 124-A (sedition ) under the IPC at that time. This section was kept in abeyance, which is why she can't be prosecuted for this,' Kumar added. He said that the FIR was registered on the basis of her questioning on May 15, which is not legally permissible because a person can't become a witness against himself/herself.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka HC Appoints Amicus Curiae in Bengaluru stampede case
The Karnataka high court on Monday appointed senior advocate S Susheela as the amicus curiae to assist the court in the suo motu proceedings it has initiated following the deadly stampede outside the M Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru on June 4 that killed 11 and injured several others. Fans wave as a bus carrying the IPL 2025 winning Royal Challengers Bengaluru team arrives at the Chinnaswamy Stadium, in Bengaluru, Karnataka, Wednesday, June 4, 2025. (PTI) A bench of acting chief justice V Kameswar Rao and justice CM Joshi said that the amicus curiae must also assist the court on whether the status report filed by the Karnataka government on the stampede in a sealed cover must be kept confidential or whether its contents deserve to be made public. The court directed the state to provide a copy of its status report and all other relevant documents to advocate Susheela, so that she can file her statement of objections. The June 4 stampede took place ahead of IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB)'s victory celebration and the high court had initiated suo motu proceedings into the case on June 5. It had posed nine questions to the state government at the time, including who had authorised the event, how crowd control and emergency care had been handled, and whether any prior assessment had been made of the expected turnout. The state that has since maintained that RCB was solely responsible for the large crowd at the stadium and the consequent stampede, had filed its response to the court's questions in a sealed envelope claiming its answers contained sensitive information and could 'prejudice some third parties'. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty has repeatedly argued that the contents of the state's status report should remain in a sealed cover at least until the ongoing magisterial and a one-man judicial commission inquiries into the case are complete. However, several other lawyers, including those impleaded as parties in the suo motu PIL, have urged the court to make the contents of the report public since the state was accountable to the members of the public. The Bengaluru police has also registered three suo motu FIRs following the stampede and named RCB, event management DNA Entertainment, and the Karnataka State Cricket Association in the FIRs. All three entities have moved the court seeking the FIRs against them be quashed. The state has claimed that the stampede had taken place as RCB announced free entry passes for its victory parade at the stadium following its IPL victory. It has maintained that the entire celebration event was illegal as RCB or DNA had neither sought any requisite permissions, nor implemented safety measures to handle large crowds. The stampede occurred when, on June 4, millions of people gathered at the stadium hoping to watch RCB's victory celebrations. As per the state, while the stadium can accommodate a maximum of 30,000 people, at least 200,000 people had gathered at the spot.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Sathankulam case: HC dismisses accused cop's seventh bail plea
Madurai: Madras high court on Monday dismissed the bail plea moved by suspended inspector of police S Sridhar, who was arrested in connection with the custodial deaths of P Jeyaraj and his son J Beniks at Sathankulam in Tuticorin district in 2020. The court was hearing the bail petition filed by Sridhar, the first accused in the case. Sridhar's counsel submitted that the petitioner was in judicial custody for a long period. The case is pending for cross-examination of the second investigating officer, and to complete his examination, it will take four or five months. So, the counsel sought bail to prepare arguments. However, the special public prosecutor for the CBI strongly objected to the grant of bail. He submitted that the intention of the petitioner and other accused is only to drag the proceedings. The counsel for Jeyaraj's wife, Selvarani, also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that if he is granted bail, he might abscond. Justice P Vadamalai observed that the petitioner filed six petitions for bail before the HC and a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, and those petitions were dismissed considering the heinous nature and gravity of offences allegedly committed by the petitioner and other accused. The petitioner has not engaged counsel and cross-examined all the witnesses in person at length by taking a number of hearings. The judge observed that charges against the petitioner are serious in nature, and the case is almost at the end of the trial. The petitioner participated in the trial and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses in person without engaging any counsel. So, he has ample knowledge about the case and evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel and to give instructions or to get guidance for preparation of arguments in the prison itself, according to permissible rules available in the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual. The petitioner mainly seeks bail for the reason of preparing arguments. It is not a valid ground to grant bail, the judge observed and dismissed the bail petition.
