Chandigarh: Fireman accused of using impersonator to land job denied anticipatory bail

Stating that such offences are a threat to the fabric of society, a district court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a Chandigarh fireman who is accused of using unfair means to get the job.
The pre-arrest bail application was filed by Naveen, 32, who allegedly cleared the recruitment examination in 2021 by using an impersonator.
Two other fireman, Deepak, 32, posted at the fire station in Sector 32, and Bijender, 25, posted at the fire station in Sector 17, have already been arrested on the same allegations.
The court stated that the allegations against the applicant were grave in nature, as in connivance with others, he had committed fraud with the state.
“Investigation is still pending. Therefore, there is every likelihood that if granted bail, the applicant may attempt to hamper the trial by influencing or threatening the witnesses in one way or the other. Even otherwise, the modus operandi of the applicant/accused is to be probed during investigation qua him,” the court said.
“Moreover, it would not communicate a right signal to society. Such offences cause threat to the fabric of the society,” it said, while dismissing the bail application.
The impersonation came to fore during investigation into the ASI recruitment scam from August 2023. During the probe, police found that Satish Kumar, one of the impersonators in the ASI recruitment scam, had also sent fake candidates for the firemen recruitment exam, held on October 27, 2021.
On the basis of this tip-off, records of the written examination test were obtained, and police found that the photographs of original candidates, namely Naveen, Deepak and Bijender, did not match with the candidates who appeared in the written examination for fireman recruitment.
This led to registration of an FIR against Satish, Naveen, Deepak, Bijender and others. While Deepak and Bijender are already under judicial custody, Naveen sought anticipatory bail, terming it a planted case.
However, public prosecutor JP Singh argued that the investigation was at initial stage and his custodial interrogation was required to get the details, whereabouts and involvement of other impersonators and accused; to call out truths behind the conspiracy hatched by them; and to recover the amount and gadgets used by them in the scam.