The high court recently declined to discharge Dr. Neha Bansal in a case of malpractice in the Postgraduate Entrance Test (PGET) that took place on February 12, 2006. Dr. Bansal, accused number 8 in the CBI chargesheet, had challenged the trial court’s order refusing to discharge her. The court noted that besides a positive brain-mapping/polygraph test report, there were also corroborative statements about her involvement. It is alleged that Dr. Bansal and 15 other candidates, with a poor academic record, obtained higher marks and ranks in the PGET due to a question paper leak. Dr. Bansal claimed that the polygraph test alone cannot establish her as an accused and argued that corroborative material should be presented. However, the special public prosecutor for CBI argued that the available materials would be used against Dr. Bansal in the trial, and it is up to her to prove her innocence. Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that brain-mapping or polygraph tests are not conclusive evidence to quash or convict any accused and that corroborative material, which is present in the chargesheet, is necessary. In a similar case, the Delhi High Court criticized a trial court for using the results of a polygraph test to discharge four people accused of sexually assaulting a woman. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed the framing of rape charges, stating that relying solely on polygraph tests undermines the criminal trial process. The Adani Group has accused certain groups and individuals of a criminal conspiracy to target the company, with a complaint filed by a Supreme Court lawyer supporting their claim. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed a chargesheet against a former commandant of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), a sub-inspector of the force, and a petrol pump dealer in a case of alleged irregularities in supplying heating fuel to soldiers near the Indo-China border in Uttarakhand.