High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54436 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3830 of 2025 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aryan Srivastava,Devesh Kumar Shukla,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS-2023 has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Akhilesh Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 319 (3), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2), 61 (2) BNS-2023 and Section 4/13, 7/13 The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
Legal Reasoning
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 analyses 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 facie, the Court opines that the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence is established. No case for grant of bail is made out 10. Rejected. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
3. Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Ante Corruption Act) Court No. 4, Varanasi, vide order dated 22.01.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025. It is contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR giving rise to the above mentioned case crime number and his name has surfaced during the investigation from the confessional statement of co-accused persons. The FIR was lodged against one Saurabh Kumar and one Manish Kumar by the first informant Ashok Kumar Singh, Principal, in Kendriya Vidyalaya, BHU Campus, Varanasi, regarding the Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2024-2025, conducted by the National Testing Agency, held on 04.01.2025 at 3:00 p.m. with the allegation that Saurabh Kumar was appearing as a Dummy Candidate in place of the genuine candidate Manish Kumar and the Bio-metric Data of Saurabh Kumar did not tally with that of the genuine candidate Manish Kumar available on record. Saurabh Kumar was arrested from the spot and in his confessional statement name of one Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar came to light. Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar were also arrested and from their confessional statements the name of the applicant has come to light. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri P.C.Srivastava has argued that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant to implicate him in the offence alleged. It is argued that confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence against the applicant and his complicity cannot be established based on such statement. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and as such is entitled to bail. 5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the involvement of the applicant in the crime is established from the statement of the co-accused. The sanctity of the public examination has been tarnished and as such the applicant be denied bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. From the records it is borne out that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. However, his name has come to the light from the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. In the opinion of the Court, the confessional statement of the co-accused persons may not be discarded at this stage of the proceedings when the investigation are still going on and charge sheet has not been filed. This Court is considering the bail plea of the applicant. The co-accused persons nominated in the FIR as also the persons named in the confessional statement i.e. Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar have also been arrested and have made allegations against the applicant in their confessional statements. The said statements are to be tested at the time of trial. The applicant has not assigned any reason as to why the co-accused persons would implicate him. In the opinion of the Court, the confessional statement made by the co-accused during the investigation can very well be looked into to connect the other co-accused. Such disclosure statements can be looked into for providing a lead in the investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which contemplates that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 8. The Apex Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan vs. Indraj Singh etc. has held that : " 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. " 9. The offence alleged against the applicant is an offence against the society. In the opinion of the Court the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required for the just and proper investigation of the case. It is settled principle of law that while considering a bail plea, the balancing of numerous factors such as the nature of the