PRAYAGRAJ, July 19 -- Refusing to grant bail to a man accused of using a proxy (solver) to appear in his place in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), the Allahabad high court observed that when a solver appears in someone's place in any examination, it undermines the integrity of the education system and has serious implications for society. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh rejected the bail application of one Sandeep Singh Patel and said 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 court added. On December 15, 2024, when the CTE test was going on, centre officials reportedly detected that one Lokendra Shukla, the alleged solver was impersonating the actual candidate, Sandeep Singh Patel, the applicant in the present case. It is alleged that it was all done by using a fake admit card and his biometric verification had also failed. Later, both were booked under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and UP Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. According to the applicant, he was hospitalized between December 14 and 17 and had no knowledge of the impersonation. His counsel 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. On the other hand, the counsel representing the state government opposed the bail application, saying that there were sufficient evidences against the applicant. Rejecting the pleas of the applicant, the court took note of the call records and found that the applicant was actually in contact with other accused named in the FIR, who had asked Lokendra Shukla to appear in the test in place of the applicant. Hence, he was the main beneficiary, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the present applicant is not involved in the said offence, the court added in its order dated July 8....