Allowed

Manmohan Yogi v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/8652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant accused of using unfair means in a public examination in Sitapur sought regular bail under BNS, IT Act and the U.P. Public Examination Ordinance, 2024 charges. The court found prima facie absence of the graver Ordinance offences, noted no criminal history, and enlarged him on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and presence before trial court.

Manmohan Yogi Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54939

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8652 of 2024 Applicant :- Manmohan Yogi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Apoorv Dev,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that Tata Consultancy Services/Agency was organising an examination on 16.7.2024 for multiple posts at K.P. Singh Memorial Institute of Pharmacy, Sitapur. In the third session (04.30 - 06.30p.m.), one examinee Mithlesh Kumar Meena was found acting suspiciously. BCO Mr. Yogendra Yadav directed thorough checking of the examinees, in which eight examinees/accused persons were found using unfair means. Information was given to the police on Dial 112.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The offence is triable by Magistrate. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. The applicant is in jail since 18.7.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the prosecution story is accepted as it is, at the most, it can be said that the applicant was using unfair means, which is punishable under Section 13(1) of the Ordinance of 2024 which provides that such offender may be debarred from appearing any public examination for a period of one calendar year.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or

¶11

tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused applicant has committed an offence which has resulted in sabotaging the examination.

¶13

5. A perusal of the first information report shows that offence under section 112 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS) is punishable upto seven years, for offence under section 238(b), punishment is upto three years, for 318(4), punishment is upto seven years and the punishment for the offence under section 67 I.T. Act is upto 5 years, however, for the offence under sections 8 read with 13(4) and 11 read with 13(5) of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024, the punishment is upto 10 and 14 years respectively.

¶14

A perusal of the record shows that according to the prosecution case itself, prima facie offence under sections 8 read with section 13(4) and 11 read with section 13(5) of the Ordinance of 2024 is missing.

¶15

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

7. Let the applicant Manmohan Yogi, involved in Case Crime No.266 of 2024 under sections 112, 238(b), 318(4) BNS, Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Section 8 read with 13(4) and 11 read with 13(5) of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024, P.S. Talgaon, Sitapur be released on bail on his furnishing a

¶17

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:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶22

(v) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.8.2024/kkb/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manmohan Yogi v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Yogi v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt Civil Sectt and Another

Alok Misra Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Gautam Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manmohan Yogi vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Nankunna @ Shahid Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another