Anticipatory bail made absolute absent new facts or alleged misuse of interim protection.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.

The prosecution case arose from an alleged mismatch between the applicant’s thumb impression taken during the examination and the impression taken during training, leading to allegations of impersonation, cheating and use of forged documents.

A coordinate Bench granted the applicant interim anticipatory bail on 25 June 2025, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with evidence, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on leaving India, and appearance before the trial court.

The State subsequently filed a counter-affidavit, but no new fact emerged warranting reconsideration of the earlier view, and there were no instructions regarding misuse of the interim protection.

Whether the applicant was entitled to continuation and confirmation of interim anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged impersonation, cheating, forgery and unfair means in a public examination, principally based on a purported mismatch of thumb impressions?

Whether any new circumstance had arisen after grant of interim protection that justified taking a view different from that of the coordinate Bench?

Whether the interim anticipatory bail should be made absolute subject to the conditions previously imposed?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, in the context of offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.

The Court also considered the principle, drawn from Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2014 (10) ADJ 672, and Vijay Pal v. Union of India, Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018, decided on 16 May 2023, that expert evidence is opinion evidence, generally of a weak nature, and ordinarily requires corroboration by other material evidence; an adverse decision based solely on such opinion without affording an opportunity to confront or rebut it may be legally infirm.

The Court relied on the principle that anticipatory bail may be granted where the circumstances justify protection from arrest, particularly when the applicant undertakes to cooperate with investigation and there is no demonstrated risk of absconding, tampering or influencing witnesses.

The coordinate Bench had found the matter fit for interim anticipatory bail after considering the applicant’s contention that the prosecution substantially relied upon a purported mismatch of thumb impressions, without adequate corroborative material or an opportunity for effective rebuttal.

It also noted the applicant’s undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and the existence of interim protection in favour of a similarly situated co-accused.

Upon final consideration, the Court examined the State’s counter-affidavit but found that it disclosed no new fact capable of displacing the earlier assessment.

Further, the State had no instructions alleging misuse of the interim protection.

In those circumstances, the applicant’s continued compliance with the bail conditions and the absence of any adverse development justified confirmation of the interim order.

The interim anticipatory bail order dated 25 June 2025 was therefore made absolute, and the anticipatory bail application was allowed on the same terms and conditions contained in the interim order.

The applicant remained subject to conditions requiring cooperation with interrogation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, prior permission before leaving India, appearance before the trial court, and the possibility of cancellation in case of breach.