High Court

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2024, under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2),111, 3 B.N.S., Sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 of the U.P. Public Examination Act and Section 66D of The Information Technology Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, it is a case in which as per allegation applicant and other accused persons polluted the examination system conducted by the UGC but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submits, however, as per allegation, applicant was the I.T. Cell Head of the Institute where examination was being conducted but admittedly the examination was being conducted by the N.T.A. along with C.S.I.R. and N.S.E.I.T. and this fact is even evident from the statement of Abhinav Chauhan, the Observer of the examination and, therefore, the above mentioned agencies were responsible for examination.

6. He further submits, even along with applicant number of other persons were also made accused including co-accused Ankur Saini, who was employee of private agency N.S.E.I.T. and Vinit Kumar, the Lab Technician and both the above co-accused have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.04.2025 and 20.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4220 of 2025 and 33605 of 2024 respectively and only being I.T. Cell Head of the Institute the case of applicant cannot be distinguished from them.

7. He further submits, however, applicant has also challaned for offence of organized crime but he is neither having any previous criminal history nor there is any evidence that he was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate.

8. He further submits, prima facie it appears to be a case of fraud and cheating but only to show the case more serious Investigating Officer of the case by misusing the provisions of organized crime also challaned the applicant for offence under Section 111 B.N.S.

9. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 i.e. for last ten months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was the I.T. Cell Head of the Institute where the examination was being conducted, therefore, he was having greater responsibility on his shoulder but he could not dispute, the examination was being conducted jointly by N.T.A. along with C.S.I.R. and N.S.E.I.T. and along with applicant number of other co-accused persons were also made accused with almost similar allegations including Ankur Saini, who was employee of the private agency and they have been released on bail by this Court.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that along with applicant co-accused Vinit Kumar has also made accused and as per allegation he provided I.P. address but he has also been released on bail.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however applicant has also challaned for offence of organized crime but he was not having any previous criminal history and there is no cogent evidence that he was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 i.e. for last ten months.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation, applicant and other accused persons by playing fraud and cheating polluted the examination system, which was conducted by the U.G.C., therefore, prima facie allegation leveled against them appears to be quite serious but it reflects, along with applicant as many as 22 others were also made accused including co-accused Ankur Saini and Vinit Kumar and both have been released on bail.

16. Record further suggests that admittedly examination was being conducted by N.T.A. along with C.S.I.R. and N.S.E.I.T., who are the private agencies and co-accused Ankur Saini was the employee of N.S.E.I.T.

17. Further, co-accused Vinit Kumar was the Lab Technician and however applicant as per allegation was the I.T. Cell Head of the Institute where the examination was being conducted but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on this basis case of applicant cannot be distinguished from the case of co-accused persons.

18. Further, applicant has also challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. but neither applicant was having any previous criminal history nor there is any evidence that he was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate, therefore, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie offence under Section 111 B.N.S. has not been made out against the applicant.

19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 i.e. for last ten months.

20. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant - Arun Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 AK Pandey

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2024, under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2),111, 3 B.N.S., Sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 of the U.P. Public Examination Act and Section 66D of The Information Technology Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, it is a case in which as per allegation applicant and other accused persons polluted the examination system conducted by the UGC but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submits, however, as per allegation, applicant was the I.T. Cell Head of the Institute where examination was being conducted but admittedly the examination was being conducted by the N.T.A. along with C.S.I.R. and N.S.E.I.T. and this fact is even evident from the statement of Abhinav Chauhan, the Observer of the examination and, therefore, the above mentioned agencies were responsible for examination.

6. He further submits, even along with applicant number of other persons were also made accused including co-accused Ankur Saini, who was employee of private agency N.S.E.I.T. and Vinit Kumar, the Lab Technician and both the above co-accused have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.04.2025 and 20.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4220 of 2025 and 33605 of 2024 respectively and only being I.T. Cell Head of the Institute the case of applicant cannot be distinguished from them.

7. He further submits, however, applicant has also challaned for offence of organized crime but he is neither having any previous criminal history nor there is any evidence that he was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate.

8. He further submits, prima facie it appears to be a case of fraud and cheating but only to show the case more serious Investigating Officer of the case by misusing the provisions of organized crime also challaned the applicant for offence under Section 111 B.N.S.

9. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 i.e. for last ten months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was the I.T. Cell Head of the Institute where the examination was being conducted, therefore, he was having greater responsibility on his shoulder but he could not dispute, the examination was being conducted jointly by N.T.A. along with C.S.I.R. and N.S.E.I.T. and along with applicant number of other co-accused persons were also made accused with almost similar allegations including Ankur Saini, who was employee of the private agency and they have been released on bail by this Court.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that along with applicant co-accused Vinit Kumar has also made accused and as per allegation he provided I.P. address but he has also been released on bail.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however applicant has also challaned for offence of organized crime but he was not having any previous criminal history and there is no cogent evidence that he was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 i.e. for last ten months.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation, applicant and other accused persons by playing fraud and cheating polluted the examination system, which was conducted by the U.G.C., therefore, prima facie allegation leveled against them appears to be quite serious but it reflects, along with applicant as many as 22 others were also made accused including co-accused Ankur Saini and Vinit Kumar and both have been released on bail.

16. Record further suggests that admittedly examination was being conducted by N.T.A. along with C.S.I.R. and N.S.E.I.T., who are the private agencies and co-accused Ankur Saini was the employee of N.S.E.I.T.

17. Further, co-accused Vinit Kumar was the Lab Technician and however applicant as per allegation was the I.T. Cell Head of the Institute where the examination was being conducted but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on this basis case of applicant cannot be distinguished from the case of co-accused persons.

18. Further, applicant has also challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. but neither applicant was having any previous criminal history nor there is any evidence that he was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate, therefore, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie offence under Section 111 B.N.S. has not been made out against the applicant.

19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 i.e. for last ten months.

20. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant - Arun Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 AK Pandey