Archive · 20 Sep 2026
Mumbai Court Denies Bail in Dummy-Candidate Insurance Job Fraud
A court in Mumbai refused to give Chandan Kumar protection from arrest.
He is accused of using another person to take an important job examination and interview for him.
The job was at a government-owned insurance company.
The company says Kumar’s fingerprints or other biometric details did not match the records from the examination.
It also said he received about ₹20.16 lakh in salary.
The company ended his employment after investigating the complaint.
Kumar’s lawyer said he was not given a proper chance to defend himself.
The court said the explanation about his later training biometrics did not resolve the earlier mismatch.
A Mumbai sessions court denied anticipatory bail to 32-year-old Patna resident Chandan Kumar.
Prosecutors allege Kumar used a dummy candidate for an administrative officer examination and interview.
The central government-owned insurer appointed Kumar on April 1, 2024.
The insurer said his examination biometrics did not match and terminated him on January 6.
The prosecution alleges Kumar received ₹20.16 lakh in salary over roughly two years.
- Who
- Chandan Kumar, a 32-year-old Patna resident, is accused by a central government-owned insurer and prosecutors.
- What
- A Mumbai sessions court rejected Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea in an alleged dummy-candidate recruitment fraud case.
- When
- Kumar was appointed on April 1, 2024; the insurer received the complaint on October 6, 2025, and terminated him on January 6.
- Where
- The alleged fraud involved recruitment by a central government-owned insurance firm, and the bail plea was heard in Mumbai.
- Why
- The prosecution alleges that Kumar used a dummy candidate and that his examination biometrics did not match the records linked to the recruitment process.
Prosecution and Court’s Position
Accused’s Defense
Use of a dummy candidate
Prosecution and Court’s Position
Prosecutors allege that Kumar arranged for a dummy candidate to appear in his examination and interview, and possibly in the recruitment process involving two other employees.
Accused’s Defense
Kumar’s lawyer challenged the company’s handling of the matter, arguing that the insurer had not given him an opportunity to defend himself.
Biometric evidence
Prosecution and Court’s Position
The insurer claimed Kumar’s biometrics did not match the impressions taken during the examination and interview. The court said his matching biometrics during later training did not explain the alleged earlier mismatch.
Accused’s Defense
The defense relied on the fact that Kumar’s biometric impressions reportedly matched those recorded during subsequent training.
- Accused
- Chandan Kumar, 32, a resident of Patna
- Position
- Administrative officer
- Appointment date
- April 1, 2024
- Salary allegedly received
- ₹20.16 lakh over roughly two years
- Complaint date
- October 6, 2025
- Employment outcome
- Services terminated on January 6
- Court decision
- Anticipatory bail denied