The Apex Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Gaurav Singh, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2025, under Sections 61 (2), 318 (4), 319 (2), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 11/13 (5) U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 6.1.2025. The applicant is alleged to have appeared as a Dummy Candidate in place of one Abhaya Pratap Singh (co-accused)/genuine candidate in the examination of Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2024-25 conducted by National Testing Agency held on 5.1.2025 at the examination centre i.e. Sardar Patel Public School W-2, Juhi Kalan Barra, Kanpur Nagar. It is also alleged that the bio-metric verification of the applicant did not tally with the genuine candidate's bio-metric available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution version the applicant was apprehended on 5.1.2025 and recovery of admit card was effected from his possession, but in the FIR registered on the same date at about 08:35 PM, there is no mention about the alleged recovery. The investigation against co-accused Abhay Pratap Singh is under progress and it is yet to be ascertained as to whether Abhay Pratap had appeared in the examination or not and in such circumstances, the applicant cannot be charged of the offence alleged. Moreover, charge-sheet against the applicant has been filed before the Court below. Learned counsel 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. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that recovery of admit card affixing two photographs, one scanned photograph and another in original form was found on the same. From the perusal of the same, both the photographs do not tally with each other. The applicant was arrested from the examination centre impersonating the other candidate. As such, the rejection of the bail plea has been sought.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

7. Admittedly, the applicant has been caught from the examination centre and a admit card of the genuine candidate (Abhay Pratap Singh) bearing the scanned photograph of Abhay Pratap Singh on the admit card and photograph of the applicant also affixed thereon has been found. The applicant is not a candidate for the examination and his 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.

8. 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."

9. In view of above, the Court finds no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel and they are accordingly rejected.

10. 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.

11. Rejected. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 v.k.updh. VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Gaurav Singh, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2025, under Sections 61 (2), 318 (4), 319 (2), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 11/13 (5) U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 6.1.2025. The applicant is alleged to have appeared as a Dummy Candidate in place of one Abhaya Pratap Singh (co-accused)/genuine candidate in the examination of Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2024-25 conducted by National Testing Agency held on 5.1.2025 at the examination centre i.e. Sardar Patel Public School W-2, Juhi Kalan Barra, Kanpur Nagar. It is also alleged that the bio-metric verification of the applicant did not tally with the genuine candidate's bio-metric available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution version the applicant was apprehended on 5.1.2025 and recovery of admit card was effected from his possession, but in the FIR registered on the same date at about 08:35 PM, there is no mention about the alleged recovery. The investigation against co-accused Abhay Pratap Singh is under progress and it is yet to be ascertained as to whether Abhay Pratap had appeared in the examination or not and in such circumstances, the applicant cannot be charged of the offence alleged. Moreover, charge-sheet against the applicant has been filed before the Court below. Learned counsel 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. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that recovery of admit card affixing two photographs, one scanned photograph and another in original form was found on the same. From the perusal of the same, both the photographs do not tally with each other. The applicant was arrested from the examination centre impersonating the other candidate. As such, the rejection of the bail plea has been sought.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

7. Admittedly, the applicant has been caught from the examination centre and a admit card of the genuine candidate (Abhay Pratap Singh) bearing the scanned photograph of Abhay Pratap Singh on the admit card and photograph of the applicant also affixed thereon has been found. The applicant is not a candidate for the examination and his 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.

8. 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."

9. In view of above, the Court finds no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel and they are accordingly rejected.

10. 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.

11. Rejected. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 v.k.updh. VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad