High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Parul Kant, learned Additional Government Advocate-I representing the State through video conferencing from Allahabad and perused the record.

2. By means of this second bail application, applicant- Kuldeep Singh Verma @ Kuldeep Singh who is involved in Sessions Case No. 303 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 382 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Section 66-D I.T. Act and Sections 7(ka)/8(i)(ii) P.C. Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. First of all, it is relevant to mention that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11564 of 2023.

4. The said order dated 03.06.2024 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring SLP (CRL) No. 9569 of 2024, but the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2024, which read as under:- "Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Having gone through the available record and the order of the High Court, we see absolutely no reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage along with pending application(s), if any."

5. Thereafter applicant has filed the instant second bail application.

6. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that:- (6.1) The F.I.R. of this case was lodged by Prof. S.N.Singh making allegations against M/s Uptron Powertronics Ltd., vendor company namely V-3 Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through it's representative Mr. Kuldeep Singh (applicant) and unknown persons but during investigation, complicity of the complainant-Prof. S.N.Singh was also found in this case along with other accused persons, therefore, complainant-Prof. S.N.Singh has also been made accused. Hence his statement cannot be relied upon. (6.2) The other co-accused persons have been granted bail, therefore, the present applicant-Kuldeep Singh who is languishing in jail since 17.11.2022 may also be enlarged on bail. (6.3) The charge, against the accused persons, has been framed on 01.04.2023, but till date, no prosecution witness has been examined.

7. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. On the other hand, submissions of learned A.G.A. for the State are that :- (8.1) The allegations of the prosecution are in two parts:- (i) The first part reflects the modus-operandi adopted by the accused persons for getting the work allotted to M/s Uptron Powertronics Ltd. on the basis of a forged document. (ii) The second part relates to various irregularities, interpolation and forgery, etc in the result of NEET 2021 Examination committed by the accused persons adopting different modus- operandi. (8.2) Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. by contending that the accused-persons of this case were involved in obtaining the contract for conducting online counselling of NEET 2021 examination under AYUSH department (Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy) and tampering with the original database and authorised website of NEET result with their different roles. (8.3) The result of NEET 2021 Examination was transferred through a hard-disc (in soft copy) to Mr. Kuldeep Singh Verma (applicant) and he copied the data from the hard-disc. Thereafter, the copy of forged NEET result was verified online by Mr. Kuldeep Singh. The counselling process conducted by the ofÏcers/employees through ofÒine manual verification was preserved and later, on 11.10.2022, it came to the knowledge that several students who were not qualified/appeared in NEET Examination through counselling, have also been admitted through on-line process by forging the record. (8.4) It was also revealed that data got corrupt by Mr. Kuldeep Singh. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it was the applicant (Kuldeep Singh) who had for the first time, started forgery in the NEET result at the first step of verification. (8.5) So far as the delay in trial of the applicant is concerned, it is pointed out that on account of moving separate discharge applications and other miscellaneous applications by the accused persons, some delay has been caused in disposing the said discharge applications. Now the statement of prosecution witnesses has to be recorded and best effort shall be made to produce the prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. (8.6) Lastly it is submitted that applicant is main accused, hence considering the role played by the applicant, his bail application is liable to be rejected.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that:- (9.1) The tampering and forgery, etc. with the original database and authorized website of NEET 2021 has been done and Mr. Kuldeep Singh was the master mind and played pivotal role. (9.2) After matching the names of student selected through online counselling by NEET data and by technical institute of DGME, the names of 1181 students were changed, out of which names of 22 students were found to have not appeared in NEET Examination- 2021 and 927 such students were allocated seat through various colleges, out of which 891 students had taken admission. (9.3) After rejecting first bail application of the applicant by this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also rejected the bail prayer of the applicant as noted above. (9.4) So far as the submission raised on behalf of the applicant that other co-accused persons have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail is concerned, it is relevant to mention that that all these submissions have already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant. (9.5) So far as the delay in trial of the applicant is concerned, I find that sufÏcient explanation has been given by the prosecution as noted in preceding paragraph no. 8.5 of this order. (9.6) The applicant is being prosecuted for tampering and forgery in the result of NEET Examination 2021, which is a serious concern for meritorious/deserving students and society at large. (9.7) I also find that there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the second bail application after rejection of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be entertained on the same facts. (9.8) Here it would be relevant to mention that before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 37 ACC 287, the following question had been referred by learned Single Judge for decision :- "Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected." After wholesome treatment, the Division Bench has answered as under :- "Accordingly our answer to the question referred is that fresh arguments in a second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected" (10) In view of the above, the instant second bail application of the applicant is rejected. (11) However considering the detention period of the applicant, as noted above, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (12) Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to ensure the production of all the prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court and on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, their examination-in-chief shall be recorded on the same day and an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses by accused persons shall be given following the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200. (13) It is made clear that observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. (14) Copy of this order be communicated to Commissioner of Police, Lucknow as well as concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Parul Kant, learned Additional Government Advocate-I representing the State through video conferencing from Allahabad and perused the record.

2. By means of this second bail application, applicant- Kuldeep Singh Verma @ Kuldeep Singh who is involved in Sessions Case No. 303 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 382 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Section 66-D I.T. Act and Sections 7(ka)/8(i)(ii) P.C. Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. First of all, it is relevant to mention that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11564 of 2023.

4. The said order dated 03.06.2024 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring SLP (CRL) No. 9569 of 2024, but the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2024, which read as under:- "Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Having gone through the available record and the order of the High Court, we see absolutely no reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage along with pending application(s), if any."

5. Thereafter applicant has filed the instant second bail application.

6. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that:- (6.1) The F.I.R. of this case was lodged by Prof. S.N.Singh making allegations against M/s Uptron Powertronics Ltd., vendor company namely V-3 Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through it's representative Mr. Kuldeep Singh (applicant) and unknown persons but during investigation, complicity of the complainant-Prof. S.N.Singh was also found in this case along with other accused persons, therefore, complainant-Prof. S.N.Singh has also been made accused. Hence his statement cannot be relied upon. (6.2) The other co-accused persons have been granted bail, therefore, the present applicant-Kuldeep Singh who is languishing in jail since 17.11.2022 may also be enlarged on bail. (6.3) The charge, against the accused persons, has been framed on 01.04.2023, but till date, no prosecution witness has been examined.

7. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. On the other hand, submissions of learned A.G.A. for the State are that :- (8.1) The allegations of the prosecution are in two parts:- (i) The first part reflects the modus-operandi adopted by the accused persons for getting the work allotted to M/s Uptron Powertronics Ltd. on the basis of a forged document. (ii) The second part relates to various irregularities, interpolation and forgery, etc in the result of NEET 2021 Examination committed by the accused persons adopting different modus- operandi. (8.2) Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. by contending that the accused-persons of this case were involved in obtaining the contract for conducting online counselling of NEET 2021 examination under AYUSH department (Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy) and tampering with the original database and authorised website of NEET result with their different roles. (8.3) The result of NEET 2021 Examination was transferred through a hard-disc (in soft copy) to Mr. Kuldeep Singh Verma (applicant) and he copied the data from the hard-disc. Thereafter, the copy of forged NEET result was verified online by Mr. Kuldeep Singh. The counselling process conducted by the ofÏcers/employees through ofÒine manual verification was preserved and later, on 11.10.2022, it came to the knowledge that several students who were not qualified/appeared in NEET Examination through counselling, have also been admitted through on-line process by forging the record. (8.4) It was also revealed that data got corrupt by Mr. Kuldeep Singh. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it was the applicant (Kuldeep Singh) who had for the first time, started forgery in the NEET result at the first step of verification. (8.5) So far as the delay in trial of the applicant is concerned, it is pointed out that on account of moving separate discharge applications and other miscellaneous applications by the accused persons, some delay has been caused in disposing the said discharge applications. Now the statement of prosecution witnesses has to be recorded and best effort shall be made to produce the prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. (8.6) Lastly it is submitted that applicant is main accused, hence considering the role played by the applicant, his bail application is liable to be rejected.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that:- (9.1) The tampering and forgery, etc. with the original database and authorized website of NEET 2021 has been done and Mr. Kuldeep Singh was the master mind and played pivotal role. (9.2) After matching the names of student selected through online counselling by NEET data and by technical institute of DGME, the names of 1181 students were changed, out of which names of 22 students were found to have not appeared in NEET Examination- 2021 and 927 such students were allocated seat through various colleges, out of which 891 students had taken admission. (9.3) After rejecting first bail application of the applicant by this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also rejected the bail prayer of the applicant as noted above. (9.4) So far as the submission raised on behalf of the applicant that other co-accused persons have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail is concerned, it is relevant to mention that that all these submissions have already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant. (9.5) So far as the delay in trial of the applicant is concerned, I find that sufÏcient explanation has been given by the prosecution as noted in preceding paragraph no. 8.5 of this order. (9.6) The applicant is being prosecuted for tampering and forgery in the result of NEET Examination 2021, which is a serious concern for meritorious/deserving students and society at large. (9.7) I also find that there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the second bail application after rejection of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be entertained on the same facts. (9.8) Here it would be relevant to mention that before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 37 ACC 287, the following question had been referred by learned Single Judge for decision :- "Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected." After wholesome treatment, the Division Bench has answered as under :- "Accordingly our answer to the question referred is that fresh arguments in a second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected" (10) In view of the above, the instant second bail application of the applicant is rejected. (11) However considering the detention period of the applicant, as noted above, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (12) Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to ensure the production of all the prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court and on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, their examination-in-chief shall be recorded on the same day and an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses by accused persons shall be given following the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200. (13) It is made clear that observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. (14) Copy of this order be communicated to Commissioner of Police, Lucknow as well as concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench