Naresh Kumar Meena vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.09.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 319(2), 336(2) and 336(3) of BNS, in Crime No.106 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that, during the recruitment examination for Civil Defence employees at DSSC, Wellington, the petitioner along with other accused, was found on 03.09.2026 changing seats and communicating with the others near the washroom. It is further alleged that impersonation was also detected, rasing a suspicion of a larger organised racket. Hence, the present case was registered.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that no material was found as against the petitioner and the only reason is that the petitioner involved in seat changing. He further submitted that the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.29259 of 2026 dated 12.10.2026. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that, during the written recruitment examination for Civil Defence Employees held on 03.09.2026, the petitioner along with other accused, impersonated one another to attend the examination and that the petitioner hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, (Out of which one surety must be a blood-related surety) for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.