'Cheating Devalues Merit, Erodes Trust In Education System': Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Alleged CTET Solver

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh also stressed that such acts of cheating not only devalue genuine merit but also promote a culture of dishonesty.

"Cheating in an examination deeply affects the career of meritorious students who rely on hard work and honesty. It creates an uneven playing field, where merit is overshadowed by manipulation. Over time, cheating can lead to a loss of motivation and trust in the system among sincere students, who may feel their dedication is undervalued", the bench remarked.

Case Background

Briefly put, during the CTE Test conducted on December 15, 2024, the exam centre officials allegedly detected that one Lokendra Shukla (alleged solver) was impersonating the actual candidate-Sandeep Singh Patel (applicant before the HC), by using a fake admit card, and his biometric verification had also failed.

Both were later booked under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) B.N.S. and Sections 11/13(5) of Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

Applicant-Sandeep moved the HC seeking bail on the grounds that he was hospitalised between December 14 and 17 and had no knowledge of the impersonation. He also argued that he had no links with the solver or his associates and that there was no money transaction between the applicant with either of the co-accused.

Lastly, he argued that he has no criminal antecedents to his credit, has no risk of fleeing and the fact that co-accused Brijendra Shukla @ Manish Shukla had already been granted bail.

The state, on the other hand, opposed the bail, contending that there are telephonic calls on record between Sandeep and co-accused Brijendra Shukla shortly before the exam.

It was further submitted that Brijendra had arranged for Lokendra to appear in Sandeep's place and had even given him the admit card and ₹10,000 in advance, along with a forged Aadhar card.

The Court took note of the call records and found that the applicant was actually in contact with both Brijendra, who had asked Lokendra to appear in the Test in place of the applicant.

"This Court also finds that from the act of co-accused Lokendra Shukla, present applicantSandeep Singh Patel was the main beneficiary, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the present applicant is not involved in the said offence", the bench noted.

The single judge further distinguished the applicant's case from that of the co-accused, noting that the applicant was the primary beneficiary of the impersonation and therefore stood on a different footing.

Further, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar to underscore that parity alone is not sufficient ground to grant bail, particularly when the co-accused's bail order lacks substantive reasoning.