New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue court on July 22 permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take further handwriting specimens of Manisha Sanjay Hawaldar. She has been arrested in connection with the NEET UG Paper leak case.
It is alleged that Manish shared her handwritten Physics question with another accused, Manisha Mandhare. CBI recovered the images of handwritten questions from the Mobile phone of Mandhare.
A protest is ongoing at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar against the NEET UG Paper leak.
Special CBI judge Ajay Gupta allowed the application moved by the CBI.
The court allowed the application after considering the submissions of the CBI that the documents which are to be compared by the Forensic Lab are bulky and also that the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) has indicated insufficiency of the specimen handwriting, signatures already obtained; therefore, the further permission sought by CBI is hereby allowed.
“Accordingly, CBI is permitted to take the further specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Manisha Sanjay Havaldar, in the concerned Jail,” the court said.
The court directed the Jail Superintendent to make necessary arrangements for obtaining the specimen handwriting/ signatures of the accused for three days from 27.07.2026 to 29.07.2026 by the CBI officials, in the presence of an independent witness.
During the arguments, Senior Public Prosecutor Neetu Singh submitted that accused Manisha Sanjay Havaldar is involved in the NEET (UG) 2026 question paper leak case as she shared her handwritten physics questions relating to NEET UG 2026 with co-accused Manisha Mandhare.
The agency also said that she also dictated physics questions to another accused, Tejas Harshad Kumar Shah, and that during investigation, handwritten images containing physics question notes were recovered from the phone of co-accused Manisha Mandhare.
It was further submitted by the CBI that permission to obtain the specimen handwriting of the accused has already been granted vide order dated 30.05.2026; however, since the record of this case is bulky, to compare every document in a fair manner and for fair investigation, further specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused are required.
On the other hand, the Counsel for accused Manisha Sanjay Havaldar vehemently opposed the submissions made by the Sr.PP for the CBI.
He has taken this court through the application and submitted that CBI has failed to mention the reason for obtaining further specimen handwriting of the accused.
It was also submitted that at the time of taking specimen handwriting of the accused, around 60 pages were written by the accused and CBI has failed to disclose as to how the said pages are insufficient for comparison.
CBI Counsel further submitted that the accused is a senior citizen and the aforesaid process will cause further harassment to her.
It is further submitted that the accused has cooperated in the investigation and she also wrote whatever was asked and thus, in case the specimen handwriting is insufficient, the accused cannot be subjected to the repeated specimen writing to cure the omission of the investigating agency. (With inputs from ANI)
