Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45722

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7062 of 2025

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. RC0062025A0007, under Sections 61(2) r/w Sections 112 & 316(5) of B.N.S., 2023 r/w 7/7A/8 Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018), registered at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. on 03.03.2025 in Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow against 9 named accused persons and some unknown persons stating that examination paper for conducting promotions from the post of Loco Pilot Passenger to the post of Chief Loco Inspector were leaked after taking illegal gratification. The applicant was a candidate in the aforesaid examination. It is alleged that the applicant had also paid money to obtain a copy of the examination paper a day before the scheduled date for examination and he was found staying in a guest house along with other co-accused persons and

¶9

memorizing the questions and answers of that paper.

¶10

After investigation the C.B.I. has submitted a charge sheet dated 31.05.2025 against 26 persons, including the applicant.

¶11

Eight co-accused persons who were also candidates in the examination and against whom similar allegations have been levelled have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this court.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

Although, Sri Akash Prasad, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the accused persons being in public employment have tried to secure their promotion by polluting the purity of examination, but he could not dispute the fact that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the co-accused persons who have already been granted bail.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant also on bail in the aforesaid crime on the ground of parity.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction

¶17

of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Ram.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mubarak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

M/s Assam Dental Supply Co. through its proprietor Sr, Manoj Jhingren vs Director General, medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh Swasthya Bhawan, Luknow and another

Nandani Medical Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Sharmas vs U.P. Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. and another

Smt. Arti Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Milan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rasid @ Mutti vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another