Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in UP Police Paper Leak Case
The Allahabad High Court cites serious procedural lapses in ED's summons service on accused in UP Police paper leak case
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to one Rajeev Nayan Mishra in a money-laundering case arising from the alleged leakage of the Uttar Pradesh Police recruitment examination paper.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the manner in which the agency attempted to serve summons on the accused reflected “serious procedural lapses” and could not be deemed lawful service.
An FIR was registered by the Special Task Force at Kankarkheda police station, Meerut, in April 2024 against 13 persons accused of orchestrating a leak of the police recruitment paper. While Mishra was not named in the original FIR, his name surfaced later through the custodial statements of other accused persons. He was subsequently implicated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), based on the scheduled offence.
Mishra was granted bail in the main case by a coordinate bench in May 2024. Meanwhile, the ED launched its own probe, registering an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on April 30, 2024. During the investigation, the agency recorded his statement under Section 50 of PMLA while he was in judicial custody and provisionally attached his properties in August that year. The attachment was later confirmed in January 2025.
Opposing Mishra’s plea for anticipatory bail, the ED argued that he had deliberately evaded summons and failed to cooperate with the investigation. However, the court found the agency’s claim unsustainable.
Justice Vidyarthi noted that the first summons dated November 4, 2024, directed Mishra to appear two days later, when he was still lodged in jail. The summons had not been routed through prison authorities, rendering service impossible.
Court also scrutinized the ED’s subsequent attempt to serve summons through an Upper Division Clerk, who claimed to have pasted it on a wall at an address in Meerut.
The judge found the service report “highly doubtful,” observing that it neither bore signatures of witnesses nor contained a photograph showing the pasted notice. “Nowadays, with the advent of modern technology, service of summons can be easily verified through geo-tagged photographs,” Justice Vidyarthi remarked, adding that the official appeared unaware of such methods.
Court also questioned whether clerical staff could be officially entrusted with the duty of serving summons at all.
"Upper Division Clerks are primarily entrusted with desk jobs and there is a serious doubt whether the duty of service of summons can officially been assigned to an Upper Division Clerk in accordance with some rules or regulations," court said.
Mishra’s counsel countered that he had already appeared before the adjudicating authority during attachment proceedings and participated in person on multiple dates. His mobile phone, seized by the STF, limited his access to electronic summons. Mishra, having spent over seven months in custody, assured the court of full cooperation with the agency.
Granting anticipatory bail, court directed Mishra to provide his current address, mobile number, and email ID to the ED within a week, and to appear for interrogation whenever required. He was also barred from leaving India or influencing witnesses during the trial.
Case Title: Rajeev Nayan Mishra @ Rajeev Nayan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. Of India Lko. Zonal Office Lko.
Order Date: September 17, 2025
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi