High Court

As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Ashok Kumar, who is Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission got an F.I.R. lodged on 02.03.2024 with regard to an incident which took place on 11.02.2024 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 3/9, 4, 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means), Act, 1998 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act against unknown persons stating inter alia that with regard to examination of RO/ARO (Preliminary) Examination, 2023, 103 indicated questions and its answers of the First Paper (General Studies), on which no series is mentioned but the same match with B Series question paper and 25 indicated questions and its answers of the Second Paper (General Hindi), on which also no series is mentioned but the same match with C Series question paper, were leaked and information about leakage of the said exam before exam time on 11.02.2024 has been brought to the notice through some newspapers and social media and in this regard, the representations / evidence also received on the email of the Commission, it is prima facie evident that the indicated questions of the second question paper and the answers mentioned against it were made public before the scheduled time of commencement of the examination on 11.02.2024 at 2:30 pm, which should be technically verified and the matter be thoroughly investigated and the culprits involved in it should be identified. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown person. During investigation, five accused persons, namely, Subhash Prakash, Vishal Dubey, Sunil Raghuvanshi, Amarjeet Sharma and Vivek Upadhyay were apprehended and their statements have been recorded. In the confessional statements of Subhash Prakash and Vivek Upadhyay, complicity of the applicant Kumar Abhinandan also came into light. It is the case of the prosecution that from possession of co-accused Vivek Upadhyay, mark-sheets of high school, intermediate and B.A. Part I, II, III of the applicant was also recovered and thereafter, the applicant was apprehended by the police on 30.05.2025 but no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession. It is also pointed out that co-accused Subhash Prakash and Vivek Upadhyay, in whose statements, name of the applicant surfaced during investigation have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 30.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33183 of 2024 and 34915 of 2024. It is also pointed out that apart from the aforesaid two co-accused, other co- accused of this case, namely, Saurabh Shukla, Amit Singh, Dr. Sharad Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Kumar Pal, Arpit Vineet Jaswant, Abhishek Shukla, Rajeev Nayan Mishra @ Rahul Mishra, Vishal Dubey, Sandeep Pandey, Amarjeet Sharma and Sunil Raghuwanshi have also been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 25.06.2024,

24.07.2024, 29.07.2024, 05.09.2024, 18.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 23901 of 2024, 26764 of 2024, 27688 of 2024, 28159 of 2024, 25045 of 2024, 24046 of 2024, 26111 of 2024, 29213 of 2024, 29254 of 2024, 28910 of 2024 and 28789 of 2024. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 178 of 2007, under Sections 302, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, in which he has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 of the trial Court, copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure No. 9 of the affidavit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that from the possession of the applicant, nothing incriminating material relating to question paper and answer of the examination in question has been recovered. I also find that other co-accused under similar accusation as noted above have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity of other co-accused as noted above. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Kumar Abhinandan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment before the trial Court. (v) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open for the prosecution to move bail cancellation application before the court concerned. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Shubham

As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Ashok Kumar, who is Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission got an F.I.R. lodged on 02.03.2024 with regard to an incident which took place on 11.02.2024 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 3/9, 4, 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means), Act, 1998 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act against unknown persons stating inter alia that with regard to examination of RO/ARO (Preliminary) Examination, 2023, 103 indicated questions and its answers of the First Paper (General Studies), on which no series is mentioned but the same match with B Series question paper and 25 indicated questions and its answers of the Second Paper (General Hindi), on which also no series is mentioned but the same match with C Series question paper, were leaked and information about leakage of the said exam before exam time on 11.02.2024 has been brought to the notice through some newspapers and social media and in this regard, the representations / evidence also received on the email of the Commission, it is prima facie evident that the indicated questions of the second question paper and the answers mentioned against it were made public before the scheduled time of commencement of the examination on 11.02.2024 at 2:30 pm, which should be technically verified and the matter be thoroughly investigated and the culprits involved in it should be identified. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown person. During investigation, five accused persons, namely, Subhash Prakash, Vishal Dubey, Sunil Raghuvanshi, Amarjeet Sharma and Vivek Upadhyay were apprehended and their statements have been recorded. In the confessional statements of Subhash Prakash and Vivek Upadhyay, complicity of the applicant Kumar Abhinandan also came into light. It is the case of the prosecution that from possession of co-accused Vivek Upadhyay, mark-sheets of high school, intermediate and B.A. Part I, II, III of the applicant was also recovered and thereafter, the applicant was apprehended by the police on 30.05.2025 but no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession. It is also pointed out that co-accused Subhash Prakash and Vivek Upadhyay, in whose statements, name of the applicant surfaced during investigation have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 30.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33183 of 2024 and 34915 of 2024. It is also pointed out that apart from the aforesaid two co-accused, other co- accused of this case, namely, Saurabh Shukla, Amit Singh, Dr. Sharad Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Kumar Pal, Arpit Vineet Jaswant, Abhishek Shukla, Rajeev Nayan Mishra @ Rahul Mishra, Vishal Dubey, Sandeep Pandey, Amarjeet Sharma and Sunil Raghuwanshi have also been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 25.06.2024,

24.07.2024, 29.07.2024, 05.09.2024, 18.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 23901 of 2024, 26764 of 2024, 27688 of 2024, 28159 of 2024, 25045 of 2024, 24046 of 2024, 26111 of 2024, 29213 of 2024, 29254 of 2024, 28910 of 2024 and 28789 of 2024. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 178 of 2007, under Sections 302, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, in which he has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 of the trial Court, copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure No. 9 of the affidavit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that from the possession of the applicant, nothing incriminating material relating to question paper and answer of the examination in question has been recovered. I also find that other co-accused under similar accusation as noted above have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity of other co-accused as noted above. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Kumar Abhinandan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment before the trial Court. (v) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open for the prosecution to move bail cancellation application before the court concerned. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Shubham