SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3660

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
Vikas Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Revenue Government Of U.P. At Lucknow - Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 34143 of 2025
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Rajesh Pratap Singh, Swati Agrawal
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

The examination conducted by the Railway Board is governed by the Central Act, rendering the application of the U.P. Act for unfair means erroneous.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 - Section 3 - Bail application of the applicant filed against charges for unfair means in an examination. The applicant contends that the examination falls under a separate central act and is not governed by the U.P. Act. The court noted that the applicant is accused of an examination conducted on behalf of the Railway Board, not covered by the U.P. Act, leading to the conclusion that prosecution is erroneous under the U.P. Act. (Paras 11, 12, and 14)

(B) Criminal procedure regarding unfair means - Examination authority specified in the Central Act takes precedence; thus, the applicable law regarding unfair means stems from the central law, not the U.P. Act. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of allowing an imposter to appear in a public examination for constables, but there is no material evidence linking him to the act. He has been in jail since September 2025 with no prior criminal history.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the proceedings under the U.P. Act are erroneous due to the nature of the examination being conducted by the Central Government and ruled in favor of the applicant.

Issues: Whether the examination conducted by the Railway Board falls under the U.P. Act or the Central Act concerning unfair means.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the examination was conducted by a central authority, the U.P. Act does not apply, thus allowing bail.

Result: Bail granted to the applicant with conditions.

JUDGMENT :

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 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)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top