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

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that during the recruitment process conducted by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission for various posts in December, 2018, pursuant to Advertisement No. 02 of 2018, several candidates submitted written applications for the posts of Gram Panchayat Officer, Gram Vikas Officer, and Social Welfare Supervisor. The examination was held on 22.12.2018 and 23.12.2018 for a total of 1953 posts. Out of these, it is alleged that 136 candidates adopted fraudulent means, thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves.

¶12

It is further submitted that the alleged offence committed by the co-accused persons is serious in nature and amounts to grave misconduct, as contended by the Commission.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no wrongful gain has been committed by the applicant. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the comments filed by the prosecution agency before the trial court, wherein it is alleged that in the OMR sheet filled up by the applicant, 11 questions were answered in the carbon copy, whereas 150 questions were answered in the original copy.

¶14

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that, firstly, the

¶15

BAIL No. 340 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

applicant is not named in the FIR, and secondly, both the original and carbon copies of the OMR sheet were handed over to the examination supervisor immediately after the examination. Since then, they remained in the custody of the opposite parties or the government agency and the applicant had no access to them. There is no such allegation in the prosecution case that the applicant had tampered with the OMR sheet. The allegation against the applicant is utterly misconceived.

¶18

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a beneficiary of the alleged offence as he was declared unsuccessful in the examination. The applicant has no criminal history and the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate.

¶19

The co-accused Sarvesh Kumar has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 1 of 2026. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of coaccused Kuldeep Kumar.

¶20

It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 09.01.2026 and, if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will co-operate in speedy trial of the case.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶22

On due consideration of aforesaid, including that applicant having no criminal antecedents is languishing in jail since 09.01.2026; bail order of the co-accused named above; the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate in the investigation and the offences are triable by a Magistrate, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Ankush Yadav , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 02 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B IPC, Police StationSIT, District-Lucknow, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

BAIL No. 340 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶29

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

January 21, 2026 R.C.

¶34

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

Ankush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Irsad Khan @ Irsad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anand Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

Hari Om Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hari Om Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others