New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which probed the NEET (UG) 2024 question paper theft case, has said it found no evidence to establish the involvement of Sanjeev Kumar, alias Sanjeev Mukhiya, in the crime. 

After conducting a detailed investigation, the agency said it had identified the entire conspiracy and all those involved.

“Sanjeev Mukhiya had remained absconding during the relevant period and was subsequently arrested by Bihar Police in connection with other cases. Since he was a named accused in the FIR registered in the NEET-UG 2024 case, the CBI took him into police custody for examination in the matter,” the agency said in a statement.

“However, no evidence of his involvement in the NEET-UG 2024 case emerged during the investigation. Consequently, the CBI did not file any charge sheet against him in the case, and he subsequently secured bail,” it added.

The agency clarified that Mukhiya continued to remain in judicial custody even after obtaining bail in the CBI case, as he is an accused in other cases being investigated by Bihar Police.

The CBI said it had carried out a comprehensive investigation into the NEET (UG) 2024 paper theft case, identified all individuals involved, and ensured that none escaped the legal process.

The case was initially registered by Bihar Police after detecting the theft of the NEET (UG) 2024 examination question paper. At the preliminary stage, suspicion had arisen regarding Mukhiya’s possible involvement because of his alleged links to other examination paper leak cases. He was, therefore, named as an accused in the FIR.

The investigation was later transferred to the CBI.

According to the agency, the probe identified every individual involved in the theft and subsequent distribution of the stolen question paper, as well as all candidates who benefited from its use.

The CBI has filed multiple charge sheets against 45 accused before the competent court in Patna.

The agency further said that the position regarding Mukhiya’s role had already been clarified in 2024 and asserted that the current narrative suggesting his deliberate omission from the case was “factually incorrect”.

(IANS)