High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Unees Yadav Alias Avanish Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 111 B.N.S., Sections 8 read with Section 13 U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01:51 hours and as per allegation on 13.08.2024 S.H.O. concerned received an information that in Rajendra Smarak Inter College where D.El.Ed examination is being held mass copying is being done and after receiving information when raid was made then from the room of the Principal huge money was recovered and on the information given by the Principal number of other accused were also arrested and from their possession also huge money was recovered and all the accused indulged in mass copying.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is Teacher in the alleged institution but entire allegation leveled against him is totally false.

5. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, raid was made at 11.30 AM on 13.08.2024 and accused persons including applicant were apprehended at 13.20 hours but in spite of that FIR was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01.51 hours i.e. after 12 hours and this casts serious doubt on the entire proceedings of alleged raid.

6. He further submits, however, as per allegation, from the possession of applicant Rs. 1,25,000/- were recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one and actually huge money was recovered by the police, which was collected by the college through fees of the students and out of those money Rs. 1,25,000/- have been shown to be recovered from the possession of applicant.

7. He further submits, however, as per allegation, the recovered money from the possession of the accused persons were the money received by them for the purpose to give permission of use of unfair means in the examination but except the bald and verbal allegation there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record.

8. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, the alleged raid was made after receiving information that in the college unfair means are being used in D.El.Ed examination but from the FIR it could not be reflected that when raid was made then it was found that in the alleged examination unfair means were being used.

9. He further submits, surprisingly with regard to examination there is not even iota in the FIR and entire FIR is solely based on alleged recovered money and this fact again casts serious doubt on the alleged raid and it reflects, on the basis of false allegation applicant and others have been made accused by showing false recoveries.

10. He further submits, even as per Government guidelines the examination shall be conducted under supervision of Observer duly appointed by District Magistrate but surprisingly the alleged Observer neither has been made accused nor has been made witness and his statement has also not been recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and this fact again casts serious doubt on the entire prosecution version.

11. He further submits, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but neither there is any evidence that applicant is member of any crime syndicate nor applicant was having any previous criminal history, therefore, it reflects, Investigating Officer misused the provisions of organized crime.

12. He further submits, even Principal and Manager of the college i.e. co-accused Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh and Ravi Mishra have been released on bail by this Court today vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10629 of 2025 and 13863 of 2025 respectively and case of applicant is even at better footing than them.

13. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year.

14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for bail and submits, from the record it reflects, applicant and others indulged in illegal activities and they tried to pollute the entire examination system and recovery of huge money from the possession of applicant and others cannot be disbelieved at this stage but could not dispute the fact that as per allegation raid was made on receiving information that in the college unfair means are being used in the examination but with regard to the examination there is not even iota in the FIR of the present case and in the FIR only recovery of money has been shown.

15. He further could not dispute the fact that as per FIR raid was made on 13.08.2024 at 11.30 AM and applicant and others were arrested at 13.20 hours but FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01.51 hours i.e. after 12 hours and no explanation has been given with regard to such huge delay.

16. He further could not dispute the fact that however applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS i.e. organized crime but there is no cogent evidence in this regard against him as he is not even having any criminal history to his credit. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year.

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

18. However, prima facie allegations leveled against the applicant and others appears to be quite serious and huge money was also recovered from the possession of applicant and others but considering the fact that raid was made on 13.08.2024 at 11.30 AM and applicant and others were arrested at 13.20 hours but in spite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01.51 hours i.e. after 12 hours, the entire story narrated in the FIR becomes doubtful.

19. Further, however, as per allegation, raid was made after receiving information that in the college during D.El.Ed examination unfair means are being used but in the FIR there is not even iota about examination and entire FIR only discloses the fact of the alleged recovered money and this fact again casts doubt on the prosecution story.

20. Further, it also reflects, there is Government guidelines that such examinations will be conducted under the supervision of Observer appointed by the District Magistrate concerned but during investigation it appears, neither statement of the Observer was recorded nor he has been made accused and this fact also casts doubt on the entire alleged raid.

21. Further, explanation given by applicant with regard to alleged recovered money cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage as except the bald and verbal allegation that alleged recovered money were given for the purpose to give permission of use of unfair means in the examination there is no other cogent evidence in this regard on record.

22. Further, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but it appears, there is no cogent evidence that he was even member of any crime syndicate.

23. Further, even Principal and Manager of the college i.e. co- accused Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh and Ravi Mishra have been released on bail by this Court today vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10629 of 2025 and 13863 of 2025 respectively and case of applicant is even at better footing than them.

24. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 14.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year.

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

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

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

28. Let the applicant - Unees Yadav @ Avanish Yadav 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 :- 29.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Unees Yadav Alias Avanish Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 111 B.N.S., Sections 8 read with Section 13 U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01:51 hours and as per allegation on 13.08.2024 S.H.O. concerned received an information that in Rajendra Smarak Inter College where D.El.Ed examination is being held mass copying is being done and after receiving information when raid was made then from the room of the Principal huge money was recovered and on the information given by the Principal number of other accused were also arrested and from their possession also huge money was recovered and all the accused indulged in mass copying.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is Teacher in the alleged institution but entire allegation leveled against him is totally false.

5. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, raid was made at 11.30 AM on 13.08.2024 and accused persons including applicant were apprehended at 13.20 hours but in spite of that FIR was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01.51 hours i.e. after 12 hours and this casts serious doubt on the entire proceedings of alleged raid.

6. He further submits, however, as per allegation, from the possession of applicant Rs. 1,25,000/- were recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one and actually huge money was recovered by the police, which was collected by the college through fees of the students and out of those money Rs. 1,25,000/- have been shown to be recovered from the possession of applicant.

7. He further submits, however, as per allegation, the recovered money from the possession of the accused persons were the money received by them for the purpose to give permission of use of unfair means in the examination but except the bald and verbal allegation there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record.

8. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, the alleged raid was made after receiving information that in the college unfair means are being used in D.El.Ed examination but from the FIR it could not be reflected that when raid was made then it was found that in the alleged examination unfair means were being used.

9. He further submits, surprisingly with regard to examination there is not even iota in the FIR and entire FIR is solely based on alleged recovered money and this fact again casts serious doubt on the alleged raid and it reflects, on the basis of false allegation applicant and others have been made accused by showing false recoveries.

10. He further submits, even as per Government guidelines the examination shall be conducted under supervision of Observer duly appointed by District Magistrate but surprisingly the alleged Observer neither has been made accused nor has been made witness and his statement has also not been recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and this fact again casts serious doubt on the entire prosecution version.

11. He further submits, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but neither there is any evidence that applicant is member of any crime syndicate nor applicant was having any previous criminal history, therefore, it reflects, Investigating Officer misused the provisions of organized crime.

12. He further submits, even Principal and Manager of the college i.e. co-accused Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh and Ravi Mishra have been released on bail by this Court today vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10629 of 2025 and 13863 of 2025 respectively and case of applicant is even at better footing than them.

13. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year.

14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for bail and submits, from the record it reflects, applicant and others indulged in illegal activities and they tried to pollute the entire examination system and recovery of huge money from the possession of applicant and others cannot be disbelieved at this stage but could not dispute the fact that as per allegation raid was made on receiving information that in the college unfair means are being used in the examination but with regard to the examination there is not even iota in the FIR of the present case and in the FIR only recovery of money has been shown.

15. He further could not dispute the fact that as per FIR raid was made on 13.08.2024 at 11.30 AM and applicant and others were arrested at 13.20 hours but FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01.51 hours i.e. after 12 hours and no explanation has been given with regard to such huge delay.

16. He further could not dispute the fact that however applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS i.e. organized crime but there is no cogent evidence in this regard against him as he is not even having any criminal history to his credit. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year.

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

18. However, prima facie allegations leveled against the applicant and others appears to be quite serious and huge money was also recovered from the possession of applicant and others but considering the fact that raid was made on 13.08.2024 at 11.30 AM and applicant and others were arrested at 13.20 hours but in spite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.08.2024 at 01.51 hours i.e. after 12 hours, the entire story narrated in the FIR becomes doubtful.

19. Further, however, as per allegation, raid was made after receiving information that in the college during D.El.Ed examination unfair means are being used but in the FIR there is not even iota about examination and entire FIR only discloses the fact of the alleged recovered money and this fact again casts doubt on the prosecution story.

20. Further, it also reflects, there is Government guidelines that such examinations will be conducted under the supervision of Observer appointed by the District Magistrate concerned but during investigation it appears, neither statement of the Observer was recorded nor he has been made accused and this fact also casts doubt on the entire alleged raid.

21. Further, explanation given by applicant with regard to alleged recovered money cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage as except the bald and verbal allegation that alleged recovered money were given for the purpose to give permission of use of unfair means in the examination there is no other cogent evidence in this regard on record.

22. Further, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but it appears, there is no cogent evidence that he was even member of any crime syndicate.

23. Further, even Principal and Manager of the college i.e. co- accused Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh and Ravi Mishra have been released on bail by this Court today vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10629 of 2025 and 13863 of 2025 respectively and case of applicant is even at better footing than them.

24. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 14.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year.

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

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

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

28. Let the applicant - Unees Yadav @ Avanish Yadav 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 :- 29.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad