U.P. Public Examination Act | Anticipatory Bail Denied for Non-Named Accused During Investigation : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail and quashing of an FIR under the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, reinforcing that the mere fact of an accused not being named in the FIR does not preclude investigation or arrest when a cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie. The judgment underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention at the investigation stage, particularly when the accused’s involvement surfaces during the course of inquiry.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Yadav, sought quashing of an FIR registered on 3.11.2025 as Case Crime No. 0232 of 2025 under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 13(5), and 4 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 at Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli. The FIR alleged the use of unfair means in a public examination, a cognizable offence under the Act. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but his involvement emerged during the investigation through the statement of a named accused.

Key Facts

• 3.11.2025: FIR registered under the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 for alleged use of unfair means in a public examination
• The petitioner was not named in the FIR but his name surfaced during investigation
• The offence alleged is cognizable, permitting arrest without warrant
• The petitioner sought anticipatory bail and quashing of the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution

Procedural History

• 3.11.2025: FIR registered (Case Crime No. 0232/2025)
• Post-FIR: Petitioner’s name emerged during investigation
• 2026: Petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14128 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court seeking:
  • Quashing of the FIR
  • Direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner
• 23.06.2026: High Court dismissed the petition

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the FIR dated 3.11.2025 under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 13(5), and 4 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
• A writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a petition for anticipatory bail or quashing of an FIR can be entertained at the investigation stage when:

1. The accused is not named in the FIR but his involvement surfaces during investigation, and
2. The FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence under the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the investigation against him was mala fide and unwarranted. The petitioner sought protection from arrest and quashing of the FIR, relying on the principle that judicial intervention is permissible when no offence is disclosed or when the accused is falsely implicated.

For the Respondent

The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State contended that the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence and that the petitioner’s involvement emerged during the investigation. The State relied on the precedent in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, which holds that courts should not interfere at the investigation stage unless no offence is disclosed or the accused is falsely implicated.

The Court's Analysis

The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Hon’ble Deepak Verma and Padam Narain Mishra, JJ., dismissed the petition on the following grounds:

1. Prima Facie Disclosure of Cognizable Offence: The Court observed that the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence under the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR did not preclude investigation or arrest, as his involvement surfaced during the course of inquiry.

2. Limited Scope of Judicial Intervention at Investigation Stage: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, which holds that courts should not interfere with investigations unless it is demonstrated that the FIR does not disclose any offence or that the accused has been falsely implicated. The Court noted:

   "Contents of FIR, prima facie, discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. The facts and circumstances and law laid down by Hon’ble The Apex Court in the case of The State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC 779, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition."

3. Investigation as a Prerogative of the Police: The Court emphasized that the investigation is the prerogative of the police, and courts should not interfere unless there is a clear abuse of process. The petitioner’s reliance on his non-inclusion in the FIR was insufficient to warrant judicial intervention at this stage.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition in its entirety. The Court held that:

• The FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence under the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
• The petitioner’s non-inclusion in the FIR did not preclude investigation or arrest, as his involvement emerged during the inquiry
• The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the investigation stage, relying on the precedent in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani

No specific directions were issued regarding arrest, leaving the matter to the discretion of the investigating agency.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Anticipatory Bail at Investigation Stage Is Difficult for Non-Named Accused

• Practitioners must note that anticipatory bail petitions filed at the investigation stage, particularly when the accused is not named in the FIR, face a high threshold for success
• Courts are reluctant to interfere unless it is demonstrated that the FIR does not disclose any offence or that the accused has been falsely implicated
• The mere fact that the accused’s involvement surfaced during investigation is not sufficient grounds for quashing the FIR or granting anticipatory bail

Cognizable Offences Permit Arrest Without Warrant

• Under the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, offences under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 13(5), and 4 are cognizable, meaning the police can arrest without warrant
• Accused persons cannot rely on their non-inclusion in the FIR as a shield against arrest if their involvement emerges during investigation

Judicial Restraint in Interfering with Investigations

• Courts will exercise judicial restraint in interfering with investigations unless there is a clear abuse of process
• The precedent in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani reinforces that investigation is primarily the domain of the police, and courts should not intervene unless the FIR discloses no offence or the accused is falsely implicated
• Practitioners should focus on demonstrating mala fide or lack of prima facie case to succeed in such petitions