DEVI DAYAL SINGH YADAV @ DEVI DAYALversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10038 of 2026

Devi Dayal Singh Yadav @ Devi Dayal
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Shri Vivek Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Rakesh
Kumar Tripathi, Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A.
for the State as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.414 of 2026, under Sections-319(2), 318(4),
61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 8, 11(6), 13(5) of The Uttar
Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and
Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act. 2008, Police
Station- Kotwali, District-Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the
abovementioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was
not named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged against the co-accused
Alok Patel, who was arrested by the police and from his possession a
hearing device, a bluetooth device with SIM and two batteries were
recovered. The allegation against the co-accused Alok Patel was of using
unfair means during the examinations for the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Services Selection Commission. Learned counsel has stated that the
accused Alok Kumar during investigation supposedly informed the police
that his brother's friends Virendra Kumar Rai @ Babu and Kush Patel had
told him that Arvind Rai, Devi Dayal (the applicant), Umesh Patel @
Punjabi would take some money and would get the co-accused to pass the
                                                      NABAIL No. 10038 of 2026
                                2


examinations. The applicant and the other accused had supposedly
provided the bluetooth device and hearing device and the brother of the
co-accused Alok Patel had provided the SIM card. Learned counsel for
the applicant has contended that except the confessional statement of the
co-accused Alok Patel, there is no other direct evidence against the
applicant. Similarly situated co-accused Umesh Kumar has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of
the co-accused Umesh Kumar.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. The co-accused Alok Patel was arrested by the police supposedly using
unfair means in the U.P.S.S.S.C. examination. Other than the confessional
statement of the co-accused, there is no other direct evidence available
against the applicant. Co-accused Umesh Kumar has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Devi Dayal Singh Yadav @
Devi Dayal, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on
anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that 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
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 10038 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    officer;

                                    iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
                                    of the Court;

                                    iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
                                    witness;

                                    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
                                    for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.



                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    A. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad