Akash Srivastava@ Ankit vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. The primary reasoning was the principle of parity, as four similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by coordinate benches of the High Court. The Court considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. While the allegations pertained to operating a solver gang and the recovery of a significant sum, the fact that other individuals involved in the same alleged activities had been granted bail weighed heavily in the applicant's favor. The Court found that the applicant was entitled to bail on this ground. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, along with several conditions to ensure his cooperation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, and presence on fixed dates.

Facts

The applicant, Akash Srivastava@ Ankit, sought bail in a case involving allegations of operating a solver gang to assist candidates in competitive examinations. An FIR was lodged on November 24, 2021, alleging the recovery of computers and related goods. A co-accused reportedly stated that Rs. 5.50 lacs, taken from a candidate, was recovered from the applicant. The applicant, a government employee ('Lekhpal'), claimed the money was from his father's Provident Fund withdrawal for his mother's medical treatment. He stated his mother's computer institute, registered with GST and having a work order from Tata Consultancy Services, had collapsed during COVID-19, and the seized materials were old. He also pointed out that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with similarly placed co-accused, considering the allegations of operating a solver gang and recovery of Rs. 5.50 lacs. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is a government employee and the recovered money was from his father's Provident Fund, intended for his mother's medical expenses. They highlighted that the computer institute was GST-registered and had a work order from Tata Consultancy Services. Crucially, they submitted that four similarly placed co-accused (Santosh Kumar Yadav, Vinay Kumar Yadav, Neeraj Lakda, and Abhinash Yadav) had already been granted bail by coordinate benches of this Court. The applicant also asserted no risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence and no prior criminal history. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that co-accused had already been released on bail.