Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 175091 (ALL)

SHAILENDRA SINGH YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO.

NABAIL/1730/2025 · 2025-11-15

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1730 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0685 of 2025 under Section 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS 2023 and Section 13(2) UP Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024, Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. According to the prosecution case, Shailendra Kumar Yadav, the applicant bearing serial number 10089348, was scheduled to appear for the PET-2025 examination in Room No. R-2 during the second shift at Ramabai Government Women’s College. During verification, his biometric details did not match, upon which the biometrics were conducted again. After further inquiry, it was found that another person, namely Arun Kumar Yadav, was appearing in place of the actual candidate. During interrogation, the impersonator, Arun Kumar Yadav, admitted that he had come to appear in the examination using the identity of Shailendra Kumar Yadav. He further disclosed that one Surendra Singh Yadav had sent him an amount of Rs. 27,000/- online for this purpose. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is B.Ed. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shailendra Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) and M.Sc. qualified, and therefore, there was no need for him to engage the services of any other person to appear in the PET-2025 examination. It is further submitted that the applicant would not knowingly send someone else to face biometric verification and get caught. He further submits that the applicant’s family is running several educational institutions, and hence, there was no necessity for him to appear in the PET examination, which is not commensurate with his status. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the co-accused, Arun Kumar Yadav, was caught red- handed using the Aadhaar card as well as the personal documents of the applicant during the PET examination. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record as also the case diary. Perusal of the case diary reveals that from the possession of co- accused Arun Kumar Yadav, the Aadhaar card of the applicant, Shailendra Singh Yadav, has been recovered. It has also come out during investigation that one Surendra Singh Yadav introduced the applicant to Arun Kumar Yadav, and a deal was finalized for Rs.27,000/–. The applicant allegedly transferred Rs.20,000/– to the co-accused through PhonePe, and the remaining amount was to be paid after declaration of the result. The investigation is still in progress. The offence under Section 338 BNS is punishable with imprisonment for life. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as well as the case diary, and considering the gravity of the allegations, it cannot be said that the case is of false implication or that the allegations have been made merely to malign the reputation of the applicant. Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, NABAIL No. 1730 of 2025 2 intended to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been falsely implicated or where no material exists to justify custodial interrogation. In the present case, prima facie it does not appear to be a case of false implication, and the custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be necessary. Accordingly, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed. November 15, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S NABAIL No. 1730 of 2025 3 Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench