Sanjay Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 436 of 2025

Sanjay Ram

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Tiwari, Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, Swetank Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Prashant Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.05.2025:

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶10

2. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 5 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶11

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant along with co-accused allegedly obtained employment on the basis of fabricated 'O' Level certificate issued by National Institute of Electronic and Information Technology.

¶12

4. It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in pursuance of such a preliminary finding recorded with regard to fabrication of said B.com certificate, services of the applicant along with other such appointees were cancelled leading to filing Writ-A No. 2129 of 2024, which is pending one other Writ-A No. 590 of 2022 was filed by the co-accused which was consolidated with Writ-A No.586 of 2022, Nitendra Kumar Vs.

¶13

NABAIL No. 436 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that the said petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 remitting the matter to the concerned authority to make a fresh determination with regard to establishing that petitioners therein never participated in the 'O' Level examination and that the certificates were never issued by them.

¶16

5. It is submitted that the present FIR has been lodged subsequent to the said judgment of this Court without indicating any such examination or investigation having been subsequently carried out. It is further submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history but has grave apprehension of being arrested.

¶17

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that FIR has been lodged in fact in pursuance of directions issued by this Court when the applicant was unable to furnish any plausible explanation with regard to authenticity of the documents. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶18

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the aspect of application of B.com certificate submitted allegedly by the applicant for the purposes of obtaining employment was subject matter of writ petition filed before this Court which allowed as indicated hereinabove. The FIR does not indicate any subsequent efforts for establishing genuineness of the said certificate in pursuance of directions issued by this Court. Admittedly the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting interim anticipatory bail.

¶19

8. Let the accused-applicant Sanjay Ram as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶20

9. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶22

(ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for

¶23

NABAIL No. 436 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

vacation of this interim protection.

¶26

10. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶27

11. Connect and list alongwith Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 315 of 2025.

¶28

12. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

¶29

3. The office has reported on 01.07.2025 that the notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has been served but the opposite party no.2 has not put in appearance to oppose the anticipatory bail application. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation.

¶30

4. The learned A.G.A. could not point out any misuse of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶31

5. No material has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view different from the one taken by the coordinate Bench.

¶32

6. In view of above, the interim order dated 09.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid interim order.

¶33

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶34

September 19, 2025 Ram.

¶35

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

Sanjay Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Altaf and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Zafar Siddiqui @ Mohammad Zafar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shushil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Durgesh Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Suresh Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru the Chief Secretary and 3 Others

Pinku Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko.