# Vikas Kumar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 26
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34143 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikas-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-52831
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to raise all these issues at the stage of
framing of the charge. It is thus, clear that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note
of the fact that the present FIR challenged
by the applicant before the Division Bench
of this Court does not have merit in the
case. The observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court "We grant liberty the
petitioner to raise all these issues at the
stage of framing of the charge" is binding
upon this Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India and this Court cannot
give any opinion that the charges of mutiny
and charges under Section 152 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 coupled with the other
offences mentioned in the FIR are made out
or not.

21.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, no case for anticipatory bail is
made out. It is accordingly rejected.
However, it is open for the applicant to
seek legal remedy as may be available
under law.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 26
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34143 of
2025

Vikas Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether an examination conducted by the
Railway Board or on behalf of the Railway Board
would come within the purview of the U.P. Act
No.8 of 2024, if there is allegation of using
unfair means by any candidate
Head Notes
The U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention
of Unfair Means) Act, 2024-Section 7 &
13(3); The Public Examination (Prevention
of Unfair Means) Act, 2024-Sections- 2(g),
2(c), 2(k), 2(l) & 3; The Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita,2023-Section 483- On
the conjoint reading of Section 3 of the
U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024 and Section 2(k)
along with the Schedule of the Act No.1 of
2024, this Court holds that unfair means
used in any examination conducted by the
Central
Government
authorities
as
mentioned in the Schedule of the Act No. 1
of 2024 would come within the purview of
the Act No.1 of 2024 and the criminal
proceeding shall be conducted under the
Act No.1 of 2024, not under the U.P. Act
No.8 of 2024- The U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024 is
applicable
for
public
examinations
conducted by the examining authorities
mentioned in Section 2(c) of the U.P. Act
No. 8 of 2024, but no penalty or sanction
can be imposed against the candidate
using unfair means in the examinations
for
acquiring
academic,
technical,
professional or other qualifications- Bail
application allowed.(E-15)

Held- The prosecution against the applicant
under the U.P. Act No.8 of 2024 itself appears
to be erroneous as the public examination was
not conducted by the State Government
authorities, but by the Central Government
authority and taking into account the nature of
allegation, this Court is inclined to release the
applicant on bail during pendency of the
investigation/trial.
(Para 12 & 14)

Case Law Cited
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided
on 31.01.2023; гeported in (2024) 10 SCC 685;
Bail Application No. 33546 of 2025;

List of Acts
The U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of
Unfair
Means)
Act,
2024;
The
Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,
2024;
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023.
12 All. Vikas Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
27
List of Keywords
Unfair means; Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of
2024; Section 2(k); Schedule of the Act No.1 of
2024; Criminal proceeding shall be conducted
under the Act No.1 of 2024; Not under the U.P.
Act No.8 of 2024

Case Arising From
Bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.
275 of 2025, 7, 13(3) U.P. Public Examinations
(Prevention
of
Unfair
Means)
Act,
P.S.
Etmadpur, District Agra

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Pratap Singh,
Swati Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Roshan
Kumar, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

2. The instant bail application has been
filed with a prayer to release the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 275 of 2025, 7,
13(3)
U.P.
Public
Examinations
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, P.S.
Etmadpur, District Agra.

3. As per the prosecution story, an
F.I.R. was lodged by Tata Consultancy
Services Ltd. which was assigned to
conduct the examination of Constable in
R.P.F. on behalf of the Railway Board
wherein allegation was made that in place
of the applicant and three other persons,
one unknown person appeared in the
examination. The said F.I.R. was registered
under Section 7 of 13(3) of the U.P. Public
Examinations
(Prevention
of
Unfair
Means)
Act.
The
Tata
Consultancy
Services Ltd. has also filed a chart,
showing that in place of the applicant one
unknown persons was found appearing in
the examination.

4. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicant is that as per the chart
annexed by learned A.G.A. in the counter
affidavit, one unknown person is shown to
be appeared as an imposter in place of
different candidates, however, till date that
unknown person has not been arrested and
there is no material to show that the
applicant is also part of that criminal
activity. It is further submitted that unfair
means used in any examination conducted
on behalf of the Railway Board will not
come within the purview of U.P. Public
Examinations
(Prevention
of
Unfair
Means) Act, 2024 as there is exclusion
clause in the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024,
showing that the examination conducted by
the Railway Board will not be covered
under U.P. Public Examination Act, but
under the Public Examination (Prevention
of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (enacted by the
Parliament
as
Act
No.1
of
2024).
Therefore,
the
entire
proceeding
is
absolutely erroneous against the provision
of the law. It is further submitted that
applicant has no criminal history and he is
languishing in jail since 1.9.2025. In case,
he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the
investigation/trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State opposed the prayer for bail, but he
could not dispute the aforesaid legal
position.

6.
Considering
the
aforesaid
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, it is not in dispute that the applicant
is the candidate who appeared in the
examination for Constable in R.P.F. which
was conducted on behalf of the Railway
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Board, a question arises whether an
examination conducted by the Railway
Board or on behalf of the Railway Board
would come within the purview of the U.P.
Act No.8 of 2024, if there is allegation of
using unfair means by any candidate.
Though the object of the U.P. Act No. 8 of
2024 is to prevent all unfair means, leakage
of paper in public examination, proscribe
solver gang and to prove for matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto.
The word "public examination" has been
defined under Section 2(g) of the U.P. Act
No.8 of 2024 which is being quoted as
under:-
.

"Section
2(g)
"public
examination" includes,

(i)
any
examination
either
qualifying or competitive for recruitment or
regularization or promotion to any post in
public service conducted by examination
authority;

(ii) any examination conducted
by board, university or body under any
law for the time being in force either
qualifying or competitive for awarding or
granting any degree, diploma, certificate
or any other academic distinction or for
qualifying for admission into any course
of study ; and

(iii)
any
other
examination
declared by the State Government by
notification to be a public examination."

7. Examination authority with regard
to public examination has been defined in
Section 2(c) of the U.P. Act No.8 of 2024
which is being quoted under:-

"2(c) "examination authority" in
relation to public examination includes,

(i) Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission;

(ii) Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Services Selection Commission;

(iii) Board, University, Authority or
Body under any law for the time being in
force;

(iv) any agency or recruitment
committee engaged or constituted by the
aforesaid Commission, Board, University,
Authority or Body; and

(v) any other authority, agency or
recruitment committee constituted, declared
or engaged by the State Government from
time
to
time
for
conducting
public
examination."

8. Section 3(1) of the U.P. Act No. 8 of
2024 provides that provision relating to
sanction or penalty under this Act will not be
applicable
in
any
public
examination
conducted for acquiring academic, technical,
professional
or
other
qualifications.
Therefore, if unfair means is used by any
examinee in such examination then his
answer-sheet shall not be evaluated and result
of examinee shall be declared as per the
procedure prescribed by such examination
authority. Section 3(2) of the U.P. Act No. 8
of 2024 further provides that "public
examination"
conducted
by
"public
examination authorities" defined in Clause
(k) and (l) of Sub Section (1) of Section 2 of
the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair
Means) Act, 2024 (Act No.1 of 2024) are
excluded from the purview of the U.P. Act
No. 8 of 2024. Section 3 of the U.P. Act No.
8 of 2024 is being quoted as under:-

"Section 3.(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act provisions
12 All. Vikas Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
29
relating to sanction or penalty under this
Act shall not apply to those examinee who
are appearing in any public examination
for
acquiring
academic,
technical,
professional or other qualification:

Provided that if such examinee is
found to use or in indulgence of unfair
means in answering any paper in public
examination, answer sheet of concerned
paper of such examination shall not be
evaluated and result of examination of such
examinee shall be declared in the manner
prescribed by examination authority.

(2) The provisions of this Act
shall not apply to the "public examination"
conducted
by
"public
examination
authority" as they are respectively defined
in clauses (k) and (l) of sub-section (1) of
section 2 of the Public Examinations
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (
Act no . 1 of 2024)."

9. From a perusal of Section 2(k) of
the Act No. 1 of 2024, it is clear that
Central Act covers the examinations
conducted by central authorities which are
mentioned in the Schedule as well as
examinations conducted by any authority
notified by the Central Government.
Similarly, Section 2(l) provides that "public
examination authority" means the authority
specified by the Central Government by a
notification
for
conducting
public
examinations. Section 2(k) and (l) of the
Act No.1 of 2024 are being quoted as
under:-

"Section
2(k)
"public
examination"
means
any
examination
conducted by the public examination
authority, as specified in the Schedule, or
conducted by such other authority as may
be notified by the Central Government;

2(l)
"public
examination
authority" means an authority as specified
by
the
Central
Government
by
a
notification,
from
time
to
time
for
conducting the public examinations;"

10. From the perusal of the Schedule
of the Act No. 1 of 2024, it is clear that
examination conducted by the Railway
Recruitment Boards would come within the
purview of Act No.1 of 2024 and the same
has been specifically excluded by Section
3(2) of the UP Act No.8 of 2024. Schedule
of the Central Government regarding
Section 2(k) is being quoted as under:-

"THE SCHEDULE

[See section 2(k)]

ANY
EXAMINATION
CONDUCTED BY-

1.
Union
Public
Service
Commission.

2. Staff Selection Commission.

3. Railway Recruitment Boards.

4. Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection.

5. Ministries or Departments of
the Central Government and their attached
and subordinate offices for recruitment of
staff.

6. National Testing Agency.

7. Such other authority as may be
notified by the Central Government."

11. From the perusal of the above
analysis, it is clear that examination
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conducted by any examination authority
mentioned in the Schedule of the Central
Act No. 1 of 2024 (including the
examination conducted by the Railway
Recruitment Board or on its behalf by a
nominated agency) would not come within
the purview of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024.
Therefore, if unfair means is adopted by
any
candidate
in
any
examination
conducted by the nominated agency of the
Central Government or by any authority as
mentioned in the Schedule of the Central
Act No.1 of 2024, that would not be
punishable under the U.P. Act No. 8 of
2024, but under Act No.1 of 2024 as the
procedure for prosecution against the
person involved in using the unfair means
in the public examination conducted by
such central authority has been prescribed
under the Act No.1 of 2024. Therefore, the
proceeding under the U.P. Act No. 8 of
2024 for unfair means in the examination
conducted by the Central Body would be
erroneous.

12. Therefore, on the conjoint
reading of Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 8
of 2024 and Section 2(k) along with the
Schedule of the Act No.1 of 2024, this
Court holds that unfair means used in
any examination conducted by the
Central
Government
authorities
as
mentioned in the Schedule of the Act No.
1 of 2024 would come within the purview
of the Act No.1 of 2024 and the criminal
proceeding shall be conducted under the
Act No.1 of 2024, not under the U.P. Act
No.8 of 2024. It is further held that the
U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024 is applicable for
public examinations conducted by the
examining
authorities
mentioned
in
Section 2(c) of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024,
but no penalty or sanction can be
imposed against the candidate using
unfair means in the examinations for
acquiring
academic,
technical,
professional or other qualifications.

13. The coordinate Bench of this Court
in Bail Application No. 33546 of 2025 also
considered this issue and observed that
once the Central Government framed law
regarding some criminal action, then
prosecution of the same can be conducted
under the Central Act even if there is Act of
the State Government on that issue.

14. Considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court is of the view that the
prosecution against the applicant under the
U.P. Act No.8 of 2024 itself appears to be
erroneous as the public examination was
not conducted by the State Government
authorities, but by the Central Government
authority and taking into account the nature
of allegation, this Court is inclined to
release the applicant on bail during
pendency of the investigation/trial.

15. Let the applicant- Vikas Kumar,
involved in the aforementioned crime be
released on bail, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. 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.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.

iii.
The
applicant
shall
not
indulge
in
any
criminal
activity
or
12 All. Teekam Vs. State of U.P.
31
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.

16. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

17. Identity, status and residence proof
of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are
accepted.

18. The applicant shall be released
on the basis of downloaded copy of this
order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad and verified by the
concerned counsel with the undertaking
that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.

19. It is further directed that the trial
court shall send the release order to the
concerned
jail
through
Bail
Order
Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.

20. Office is directed to send a copy of
this
order
to
the
applicant
through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or
e-prison portal in compliance of the order
of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023; eported in (2024)
10 SCC 685.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41370 of
2025

Teekam ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether after rejection of bail by Sessions Court
on the basis of material available in the case
diary, the High Court can entertain the bail
application on the basis of material collected
during trial though the same was not available
before the Sessions Court at the time of
rejection of bail application as well as the
question whether the second bail application is
maintainable on the basis of evidence collected
during trial though at the time of rejection of
first bail application by the Sessions Court as
well as High Court that material was not
available

Head Notes
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section 483- Successive bail
applications can be filed on the basis of
new material even though that material is
collected during trial and the same was
not available before Sessions Court or the
High Court at the time of rejection of
earlier bail application(s)- Bail application
allowed.(E-15)

Held- That second bail application or successive
bail applications may be entertained by the High
Court on the basis of material collected during
trial even though such material was not
available before the Sessions Court or High
Court
while
considering
the
earlier
bail
application but in appropriate case High Court
may direct the applicant to file successive bail
application before the Sessions Court on the
basis of new material.
(Para 7 & 11)

Case Law Cited
Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary vs The State of
Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.992 of
2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.808 of