Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22544 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3349 of 2025 Applicant :- Sharda Prasad Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Divyanshu Singh,Divya Tripathi,Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Prashant Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.76 of 2025 under Section 8, 11, 13(5) of Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, P.S. Kachhauna, District Hardoi. 3. As per contents of first information report, the police team was informed about copying taking place with regard to examination for High School and Intermediate whereafter the premises in question was raided and such copies were confiscated. The F.I.R. indicates that applicant's name was nominated on the basis of alleged confessional statement of alleged solvers who were apprehended. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that he was neither apprehended from the spot nor is there any recovery from him. It is submitted that applicant's name has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of the apprehended girls and that too his only role indicated is that of having taken copies for delivery to some other persons. It is therefore submitted that there is no active role indicated against applicant in the allegations levelled. It is also submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 08.03.2025. Further submission is that applicant is a teacher. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that applicant is one of the prime accused along with other persons and is actively involved in business of copying and supplying copied answer sheets. It is however admitted that applicant is a Teacher and does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has not been apprehended from the spot nor is there any recovery from him and his name has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of girls who were found on the spot. Applicant is a teacher without any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 08.03.2025. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant Sharda Prasad Verma, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench