Mandhare allegedly had conspired with other co-accused persons, including Manisha Waghmare and Prahlad Vittal Rao Kulkarni to leak questions and content to students for a substantial monetary gain

The Rouse Avenue court in the national capital on Sunday (May 17, 2026) remanded Manisha Mandhare, a botany expert and National Testing Agency (NTA) panellist, to 14 days of CBI custody in connection with the NEET-UG Exam Paper leak case.

Ms. Mandhare allegedly had conspired with other co-accused persons, including Manisha Waghmare and Prahlad Vittal Rao Kulkarni to leak questions and content to students for a substantial monetary gain.

The CBI has sought 14 days remand of the accused, Ms. Mandhare, to unearth the larger conspiracy and source of the leaked NEET-UG 2026 question paper. She was apprehended from a hotel in Mathura.

After hearing the submissions of the CBI, Special Judge Colette Rashmi Kujur granted 14 days of police custody of Ms Mandhare to the CBI. She is to be produced before the court on May 30.

While granting the custody, the court noted that, allegedly, there is a larger conspiracy angle present in this case, and as per CBI, several other accused persons who are the active members of this syndicate are yet to be identified and arrested, and for this purpose, the custodial interrogation of the accused is sought for 14 days.

“Considering the facts and circumstances and nature of the offence and the prayer made in the present application, the application is allowed, and the accused Manisha Gurunath Mandhare is remanded to police custody for 14 days, subject to her medical examination. Let her be produced before the concerned court on 30.05.2026,” Special Judge Kujur ordered on May 17.

Investigation officer Deputy SP Pawan Kumar Kaushik produced Manisha Mandhare before the court after her arrest.

Senior public prosecutor V.K. Pathak and Public Prosecutor Darshan Lal appeared for the CBI

It was argued by the senior public prosecutor for CBI that the accused was in conspiracy with other co-accused persons, including Manisha Waghmare and Prahlad Vittal Rao Kulkarni.

It was further argued that the present accused provided examination-related questions/content to selected students in consideration of substantial monetary benefits.

It was also argued that the accused is one of the Experts on the Panel of NTA and involved in the process of setting the question papers during which she has gained access to the final question sets of NEET UG 2026, which she subsequently leaked to the students for monetary gain.

It was further argued that to date, a total of eight accused persons have already been arrested and remanded to police custody.

The CBI counsel argued that to unearth the larger conspiracy and source of the leaked NEET-UG 2026 question paper, accused has to be taken to various parts of the country, to identify and apprehend other co-accused persons, to recover and analyse the digital devices and evidence and financial trail connected to the NEET-UG 2026, custodial interrogation of accused is essential and hence prayed for 14 days police custody remand of the accused.

The court noted that the investigation is at its very initial and crucial stage, and the police custody of the accused has been sought to unearth the larger conspiracy as well as to arrest all the other active members of this organised paper leak gang and also for the recovery of all the relevant incriminating material.

As per CBI, the accused is also required to be taken to other parts of the country for the purpose of investigation and for the recovery of the incriminating material related to the exam leak-related issue.

The CBI said that the entire process of NTA is under investigation. She also received the money from students. It has to be investigated.

Advocates Karan Mann, Akash Chauhan and Nikhil Saroha appeared for the accused.

The Counsels for the accused strongly opposed the application, arguing that the accused is about 57 years of age and is a Lecturer by profession and is fully cooperating with the investigation; there is no need for her police custody remand.

It was argued that 14 days’ custody is not required, as she has to be taken to Pune only.

Defence counsel opposed the remand application. Nothing has been recovered from the house of the accused. She has joined the investigation twice. She was in custody for 3 days.

Counsel for accsued also moved an application seeking preservation of CCTV footage connected with the case. The court has sought a reply from the CBI on the application.