HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11452 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard Shri S.W. Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further stated that neither the applicant nor the impersonator who appeared in the examination has been arrested during the course of the examination. Abhishek Kumar was the solver who appeared in place of Mr. Gaurav Aditya. According to the prosecution’s own admitted case, the applicant has no role in the alleged incident. Learned counsel has drawn the Court’s attention to Parcha No. 2 of the case diary, wherein the investigating officer, while arresting the applicant, himself observed that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of apprehension. The alleged recovery does not support or corroborate the prosecution’s allegations. He further submitted that co-accused Bhagirath Sharma @ Chandan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Bail Application No.11306 of 2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhananjay Kumar Saurav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 application, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Upon due consideration to the bail order of co-accused and the facts that the offences are triable by a Magistrate; the alleged recovery of one mobile and one tablet are false; there is no independent witness to the recovery; and keeping in view that the applicant is in custody since 07.10.2025 and has no criminal history, I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Dhananjay Kumar Saurav, involved in Crime No./FIR No. 290/2025, U/s-319(2),318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 (2) BNS, section 3 and 10 U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, PS- Bijnore, District- Lucknow be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. BAIL No. 11452 of 2025 2 November 20, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 11452 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench