HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10038 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.414 of 2026, under Sections-319(2), 318(4), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 8, 11(6), 13(5) of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act. 2008, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged against the co-accused Alok Patel, who was arrested by the police and from his possession a hearing device, a bluetooth device with SIM and two batteries were recovered. The allegation against the co-accused Alok Patel was of using unfair means during the examinations for the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. Learned counsel has stated that the accused Alok Kumar during investigation supposedly informed the police that his brother's friends Virendra Kumar Rai @ Babu and Kush Patel had told him that Arvind Rai, Devi Dayal (the applicant), Umesh Patel @ Punjabi would take some money and would get the co-accused to pass the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Devi Dayal Singh Yadav @ Devi Dayal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) examinations. The applicant and the other accused had supposedly provided the bluetooth device and hearing device and the brother of the co-accused Alok Patel had provided the SIM card. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that except the confessional statement of the co-accused Alok Patel, there is no other direct evidence against the applicant. Similarly situated co-accused Umesh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of the co-accused Umesh Kumar. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties. 6. The co-accused Alok Patel was arrested by the police supposedly using unfair means in the U.P.S.S.S.C. examination. Other than the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other direct evidence available against the applicant. Co-accused Umesh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Devi Dayal Singh Yadav @ Devi Dayal, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:- i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police NABAIL No. 10038 of 2026 2 officer; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. October 1, 2026 A. Pandey NABAIL No. 10038 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad