High Court · 2025
Case Details
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Pooja Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 730 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6/10 U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. She has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 15.12.2024. As per the prosecution case, as is borne out from the first information report dated 15.12.2024, the Central Teachers Eligibility Test was going on in the examination centre Shakun Vidya Niketan Devrakh, Naini, Prayagraj wherein the applicant was caught red handed giving CTET Examination impersonating another candidate, namely, Mamta Devi wife of Sunil Kumar. It has been alleged in the first information report that the applicant was giving aforesaid examination appearing for Roll No. 224222313 by forging the Aadhar Card No. 571844622753 and the voter ID card No. WKA336340 by editing photograph and address thereupon. The act of impersonation by the applicant is stated to have been detected while undergoing bio-metrics verification. The applicant was arrested on 15.12.2024 and since then, she is in judicial custody. It has been argued that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. The applicant is a bright student and has qualification of B.A., P.G.D.C.A. to her credit. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no explanation as to how the applicant entered in the examination centre where entrance of the candidate was being allowed after bio-metric examination. She has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of her fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA, in opposition to the prayer for grant of bail, submits that applicant by her overt act has impersonated the candidate Mamta Devi wife of Sunil Kumar and has appeared in the CTET examination in her place. She has also forged the Aadhar card and voter ID card by editing the photographs and the address appearing thereon. In such view of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for being released on bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly, the applicant has been caught from the examination centre with doctored Aadhar card and Votor ID Card of the genuine candidate (Mamta Devi). The applicant is not a candidate for the examination and her presence and arrest from the examination centre has not been explained. In the fact the complicity of the applicant stands established. The sanctity of the examination has been undermined. The Apex Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan versus Indraj Singh etc. (Crl. Appeal No (s) .... of 2025) arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 16156-16157/2024) while rejecting the bail granted by the Rajasthan High Court in a case in which another candidate had allegedly appeared as a Dummy Candidate in place of the genuine candidate vide its order dated 7.3.2025, was pleased to observe as under in Para 10 and 11:- "10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process ? with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.
11. Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent - accused have indeed not committed any crime in law." In view of above, the Court finds no merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant and they are accordingly rejected. It is settled principle of law that while considering a bail plea, the balancing of numerous factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie, view of the involvement of the accused are important. At the stage of assessing whether a case is a fit case for grant of bail, the detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the commission of the crime by the accused is not warranted as the same is matter of trial. Prima face, the Court opines that the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence is established. No case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Pooja Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 730 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6/10 U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. She has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 15.12.2024. As per the prosecution case, as is borne out from the first information report dated 15.12.2024, the Central Teachers Eligibility Test was going on in the examination centre Shakun Vidya Niketan Devrakh, Naini, Prayagraj wherein the applicant was caught red handed giving CTET Examination impersonating another candidate, namely, Mamta Devi wife of Sunil Kumar. It has been alleged in the first information report that the applicant was giving aforesaid examination appearing for Roll No. 224222313 by forging the Aadhar Card No. 571844622753 and the voter ID card No. WKA336340 by editing photograph and address thereupon. The act of impersonation by the applicant is stated to have been detected while undergoing bio-metrics verification. The applicant was arrested on 15.12.2024 and since then, she is in judicial custody. It has been argued that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. The applicant is a bright student and has qualification of B.A., P.G.D.C.A. to her credit. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no explanation as to how the applicant entered in the examination centre where entrance of the candidate was being allowed after bio-metric examination. She has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of her fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA, in opposition to the prayer for grant of bail, submits that applicant by her overt act has impersonated the candidate Mamta Devi wife of Sunil Kumar and has appeared in the CTET examination in her place. She has also forged the Aadhar card and voter ID card by editing the photographs and the address appearing thereon. In such view of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for being released on bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly, the applicant has been caught from the examination centre with doctored Aadhar card and Votor ID Card of the genuine candidate (Mamta Devi). The applicant is not a candidate for the examination and her presence and arrest from the examination centre has not been explained. In the fact the complicity of the applicant stands established. The sanctity of the examination has been undermined. The Apex Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan versus Indraj Singh etc. (Crl. Appeal No (s) .... of 2025) arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 16156-16157/2024) while rejecting the bail granted by the Rajasthan High Court in a case in which another candidate had allegedly appeared as a Dummy Candidate in place of the genuine candidate vide its order dated 7.3.2025, was pleased to observe as under in Para 10 and 11:- "10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process ? with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.
11. Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent - accused have indeed not committed any crime in law." In view of above, the Court finds no merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant and they are accordingly rejected. It is settled principle of law that while considering a bail plea, the balancing of numerous factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie, view of the involvement of the accused are important. At the stage of assessing whether a case is a fit case for grant of bail, the detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the commission of the crime by the accused is not warranted as the same is matter of trial. Prima face, the Court opines that the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence is established. No case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad