Krishan Pahal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 405 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, Police Station- Sarnath, DistrictVaranasi, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. As per prosecution story, the FIR was lodged against five named persons, who were found involved in unfair means and getting some imposters seated instead of the original candidates in the NEET examination.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant is not a previous convict. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused person Dr. Afroz Ahmad. Learned counsel has stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that applicant has committed any offence whatsoever. The statement of the arrested coaccused person is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the fact that applicant is not a previous convict.

6. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2020/137] ", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Shashikant Verma be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.