Rajasthan High Court
Chetan Singh Meena S/O Shravan Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:46467]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5409/2024
Girdhariram S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kanasar
Police Thana Baap, Jila Phalodi, Currently Tritiya Shreni
Adhyapak, Rajkiya Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nehdai,
Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.
(Presently Accused Petitioner is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6387/2024
Jagdish Siyag S/o Shree Bhagwanaram, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Arnaay, Police Station Karda District Sanchore.
(Presently Accused Petitioner is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6717/2024
Karanpal Godara S/o Omprakash Godara, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 34, Jaton Ka Mohalla, Laler, Post Khokaran, Police Station
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner.
(Accused Petitioner Presently Confined in Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6728/2024
Ekta D/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 10,
Poonia Colony, District Churu, (Raj.)
(At Present Confined in Central Jail, Sewar, District Bharatpur).
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (2 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7340/2024
Manohar Lal S/o Shri Kishnaram, R/o Fagaliya, Police Station
Bakasar, Tehsil (Sedwa) Chauhatan, District Barmer (Raj.)
(At Present Confined in Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
--Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7351/2024
Surendra Kumar S/o Mohanram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Danta, Sarnau Tehsil Sanchore, Police Station Sanchore, District
Sanchore ( Raj).
( At Present Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7364/2024
Rohitashwa Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Jaat, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Bhuda Ka Baas, Thana Malsisar, District- Jhunjhunu
(Raj.) (At Present In Judicial Custody And Confined In Central
Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7819/2024
Harkhu D/o Jogaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kairnada, Police
Thana Chohtan, District Barmer.
(Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (3 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8281/2024
Chetan Singh Meena S/o Shravan Lal Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ali Nagar, Police Station Aligarh, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt.
Tonk (Raj.)
(At Present Accused Petitioner Confined Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8748/2024
Dinesh Singh Chouhan S/o Dhanpat Singh Chouhan, Aged About
48 Years, R/o Rampura Basti, Gali No. 2B, Lalgarh, Bikaner,
Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
(At Present Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8749/2024
Rajaram @ Raju Matrix S/o Ramrakh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Gali No. 02, Jambheshwar Nagar, Police
Station Naya Sahar, District Bikaner (Raj.)
(At Present in Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8750/2024
Ankita Godara D/o Shri Shyam Sundar Vishnoi, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Zorawarpura Nokha, Police Station Nokha, Teh -
Nokha, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (4 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
(Accused Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9183/2024
Premsukhi W/o Shri Rajkumar D/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Muktaprasad Sector No. 03, Near Sonu
Monu School, Bikaner.
(Accused Petitioner Presently Confined in Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9710/2024
Abhishek Vishnoi S/o Shri Dalpatsingh Vishnoi, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Gudha Vishnoiyan, Police Station Vivek Vihar, Distt.
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Accused Petitioner Presently Confined in Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11330/2024
Rajeshwari D/o Babulal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Haalivav, Post
Virawa, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.)
(At Present Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11531/2024
Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Likhmewala, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, P.s. Raisingh
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (5 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Nagar, District Sriganganagar, Current R/o Flat No. A-57, First
Floor, Moti Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
(Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11837/2024
Bhagwati Vishnoi W/o Vinay Vishnoi D/o Veeraram, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Punasa Tehsil Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore, Rajasthan.
(Accused Petitioner Presently Confined in Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12558/2024
Hanuman Prasad S/o Gyarsilal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bilota,
P.s. Aligarh, Distt. Tonk, Currently Suspended From Junior
Assistant, Department Of Land Resources, Head Office Near
Agrasen Circle, Distt. Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
(At Present Confined in J.C. Distt. Tonk).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13393/2024
Neeraj Kumar S/o Kawar Singh Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Raajdhoki, Tehsil Tijara, P.s. Tijara, District Alwar.
(At Present Accused Is Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (6 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan with
Mr. Ashok Choudhary for accused
petitioners in Bail Application Nos.
5409/2024, 6387/2024 & 7819/2024
Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Vedant Sharma
for accused petitioners in Bail
application Nos. 6717/2024 &
11837/2024 and 13393/2024
Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Veerendra Singh, Ms. Jaya Mitra,
Mr. Rakesh Choudhary and Mr. Manav
Sharma for accused petitioners in Bail
Application Nos. 6728/2024 &
11330/2024
Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat for
accused petitioners in Bail Application
Nos. 7340/2024 and 7351/2024
Mr. Kinshuk Jain for accused
petitioner in Bail Application No.
7364/2024
Dr. Mahesh Sharma for accused
petitioners in Bail Application
Nos.8281/2024 and 12558/2024
Mr. Rajvir Singh Gurjar for accused
petitioner in Bail Application
No.8748/2024
Mr. Ashish Chauhan for accused
petitioner in bail application
No.8749/2024
Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma with
Mr. Ramanuj Sharma with Rahul
Kashyap and Mr. Mazish Rashid for
accused petitioner in bail application
No. 8750/2024
Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Savita Nathawat and Mr. Vedant
Sharma for accused petitioners in Bail
Application No. 9183/2024
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (7 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Mr. Ishan Kasliwal for accused
petitioner No. 9710/2024
Ms. Kanika Burman with Mr. Nirbhay
Tiwari and Mr. Abhishek Choudhary
for accused petitioner in bail
application No. 11531/2024
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Special PP with
Ms. Shreya Hatila
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
Date of Reserve ::: November 08, 2024
Date of Pronouncement ::: November 22, 2024
1. All these post arrest bail applications have been
filed by the accused petitioners in connection with FIR
No.0010/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered at Police Station
Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for the
offences punishable under sections 419, 420 and 120B IPC,
sections 4,5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act of
1992') and section 66D of the Information & Technology Act,
2008 (for short 'the Act of 2008'), hence, same are being
decided by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant
Niyaj Mohammad Khand, Dy. Superintendent of Police, ATS &
SOG lodged an FIR No.0010/2024 dated 03.03.2024 at Police
Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for
the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 and 120B
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (8 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
IPC, sections 4,5 and 6 of the Act of 1992 and section 66D of
the Act of 2008, which is quoted as under:-
"fuosnu gS fd izdj.k la[;k 540@2020 /kkjk 420] 120ch vkbZihlh o
/kkjk 4@6 jkt- lkoZtfud ijh{kk vf/kfu;e 1992 Fkkuk lkaxkusj t;iqj
iwoZ dk vuql/a kku eu~ mi v/kh{kd iqfyl }kjk fd;k tk jgk gS nkSjkus
vuqla/kku ;g rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd jfoUnz cky Hkkjrh lhfu;j
lSd.Mjh Ldwy] 'kkafruxj] gluiqjk] t;iqj esa fLFkr gS bl Ldwy ds
dsUnzk/kh{kd ds :i esa jkts'k [k.Msyoky dk;Z djrs gSa izfr;ksxh
ijh{kkvksa ds isij yhd djus okyh laxfBr xSxa ds ljxuk txnh'k
fc'uksbZ iq= Jh gjhjke fuoklh nkrk Fkkuk lkapkSj ftyk lkapkSj] xSxa ds
lnL; ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh iq= Jh txnh'kpUnz fuoklh
iwfu;ka dkWyksuh pq: o f'kojru eksV iq= Jh ca'khyky eksV tkfr czkã.k
fuoklh BsBkj Fkkuk jkft;klj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj gky ykbZczfs j;u jk-m-
ek-fo- Hkkstsokyk CykWd lqjrx< ftyk Jhxaxkuxj dk laidZ fiNys 6&7
o"kksZa ls dsUnzk/kh{kd jkts'k [k.Msyoky ls gS bl xSxa ds mijksDr lnL;
le;≤ ij bl Ldwy lsUVj ij vk;ksftr gksus okyh izfr;kxh
ijh{kkvksa esa cSBus okys vius ifjfpr vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds iz'u i= gy djokus
esa jkts'k [k.Msyoky ls enn ysrs gSa bdlh ds pyrs jkts'k [k.Msyoky
ds bl xSxa ls lEcU/k izxk< gksrs pys x;sA jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx
us jktLFkku iqfyl mi fujh{kd@IykVwu dek.Mj HkrhZ djus lEcU/kh
foKfIr o"kZ 2021 esa izdkf'kr dhA ;g ijh{kk iwjs jktLFkku esa fnukad
13-09-2021 ls 15-09-2021 rd vk;ksftr dh xbZA ijh{kkFkhZ dks ,d
isij lqcg dh ikjh esa le; 10-0 ,,e ls 12-00 ih,e rFkk nwljk isij
lka;dky ikjh esa le; 03-00 ih,e ls 05-00 ih,e rd gy djuk FkkA
bl ijh{kk dk ,d ijh{kk dsUnz jfoUnz cky Hkkjrh lhfu;j lSd.Mjh
Ldwy] 'kkafrxuj] gluiqjk] t;iqj esa FkkA txnh'k fc'uksbZ] ;wuhd HkkEcq
mQZ iadt pkS/kjh o f'kojru eksV us bl Ldwy esa dsUnzk/kh{kd jkts'k
[k.Msyoky ds lkFk feydj bl ijh{kk dk iz'ui=ksa dks yhd djus dk
vkijkf/kd "kM;a= jpkA bl vkijkf/kd "kM;a= ds dze esa jkts'k
[k.Msyoky us ;g r; fd;k fd iz'ui=ksa ds Ldwy ij izkfIr ls iwoZ
;wuhd HkkEcw mQZ iadt pkS/kjh dks Ldwy ds vkpk;Z vkWfQl esa ?kqldj
vkWfQl esa cuh NksVh dksVM+h esa Nqiuk gksxk] D;ksfa d izkIr gksus okys
iz'ui=ksa dks bl vkWfQl esa j[kus ds i'pkr dejs dks lhy djuk gksxk
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (9 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
rFkk blh vof/k esa ;wuhd HkkEcw mQZ iadt pkS/kjh isij dks iSdV ls
fudkydj mldh eksckbZy Qksu ls QksVks [khapdj isij dks txnh'k
fc'uksbZ ds eksckbZy Qksu ij tfj;s OgkV~l,i fHktokuk gksxkA ijh{kk
'kq: gksus ls djhc Ms<&nks ?kaVs igys ijh{kk dsUnz ij iz'ui= vkus FksA
bl ;kstuk dks ewrZ :i nsus ds fy;s jkts'k [k.Msyoky us ijh{kk
lEikfnr djus ds uke ij fjdkWMZ ij ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh dh
M~;wVh yxkbZA pwfa d ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh dks vkpk;Z vkWfQl
esa Nqiuk Fkk vr% mldh txg f'kojru eksV ls M~;Vw h djokus dk r;
fd;k x;kA f'kojru eksV dh M~;wVh vkpk;Z vkWfQl ds ckgj dh
fuxjkuh ,oa la[;k iwfrZ gsrq yxkbZ xbZA fnukad 13-09-2021 dks iz'ui=
ijh{kk 'kq: gksus ls Ms<&nks ?kaVs igys vkus ds ctk; FkksMh nsj igys gh
vk;s Fks] blfy;s eqrkfcd ;kstuk isij yhd djus esa lQyrk ugha
feyhA fnukad 14-09-2021 o 15-09-2021 dks ;kstuk ds eqrkfcd ;wuhd
HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh iz'ui=ksa ds dsUnz ij izkfIr ls iwoZ vkpk;Z
vkWfQl esa ?kqldj NksVh dksVM+h esa Nqi x;kA iz'ui=ksa dks vkpk;Z
vkWfQl esa j[ks tkdj dejs dks lhy djus ds i'pkr ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ
iadt pkS/kjh us iSdVs esa phjk yxkdj isij fudkydj eksckbZy Qksu ls
mldh QksVks yh rFkk isij dks okfil iSdVs esa j[kdj Vsi ls iSd dj
fn;kA rRi'pkr ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh us tfj;s OgkV~lvi
txnh'k fc'uksbZ ds ikl mlds eksckbZy Qksu ij Hkst fn;kA isij ysus
ds cnys esa txnh'k fc'uksbZ us ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh ds ekQZr
jkts'k [k.Msyoky dks nl yk[k :i;s fn;sA txnh'k fc'uksbZ us
OgkV~lvi ij vk;s iz'ui= dk fizUVj ls fizUV fy;k rFkk bl iz'ui=
dks gy djus ds i'pkr lkWYoM isij dks jktLFkku ds fofHkUu Hkkxksa esa
ekStwn vius lkbZV gS.MylZ ds OgkV~lvi ds ekLVj xzqi ij ,d lkFk
Hkst fn;kA txnh'k fc'uksbZ o ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh }kjk
miyC/k djk;s x;s ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks lkbZV gS.MylZ }kjk lacaf/kr ijh{kk
dsUnzksa ds utnhd lkWY43oM isij dks fnukad 14-09-2021 o 15-09-2021
dks i<+k;k x;kA lkbZV gS.MylZ vius okguksa ls bu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks isij
i<+kus ds i'pkr ijh{kk dsUnzksa rd igqp
a k;k x;kA izFke ikjh dh ijh{kk
lekIr gksus ds rqjar ckn bu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks lkbZV gS.MylZ }kjk ijh{kk
dsUnz ls ys tk;k tkdj nwljh ikjh dk isij iqU>qua wa o vU;
ntZuksa mi fujh{kd jktLFkku iqfyl vdkneh esa ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr
dj jgs gSa ,oa papy iq=h Jh Jo.kjke fuoklh fQVdkluh ftyk
tks/kiqj p;fur gksdj orZeku esa iqfyl Vªfs uax lsUVj fd'kux<+ esa
ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr dj jgh gSA txnh'k fc'uksbZ o ;wuhd HkkEcq }kjk
i<+k;s x;s fuEu vH;kfFkZ;ksa us vfUre :i ls p;fur gksus ds ckotwn
mi fujh{kd in ij tkWbZu ugha fd;k gS& 01- v'kksd flag ukFkkor] 02-
jktsUnz ;kno mQZ jktw] 03- fl)kFkZ ;kno iq= jktsUnz ;kno fuoklh
t;iqj o dbZ vU; p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa us Hkh tkWbZu ugha fd;k gSA
txnh'k fc'uksbZ xSxa ds lkFk feydj HkwisUnz lkj.k fuoklh lkapkSj]
vfuy dqekj eh.kk mQZ 'ksjflag eh.kk o lqjs'k sections 419 and 467 and 468 IPC are made out against the
petitioner as he has not prepared any forged documents.
4. Per contra Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special
Public Prosecutor submitted that the hand-writing of the
accused petitioner, the signatures put on the attendance
sheet and OMR sheets of the candidate Vikramjeet were sent
to the FSL Department and the signatures and the other hand
written material on the attendance sheet of the candidate of
Vikramjeet were found to be matching with the hand writing
of the present petitioner, which clearly speaks that the
accused petitioner appeared in the SI examination as a
dummy candidate for Vikramjeet. He has placed before the
Court the FSL Report. Learned Special Public Prosecutor
further submitted that during investigation it has also come
out that both i.e. accused petitioner and Vikramjeet stayed at
one place at Jain Dharamshala, Udaipur soon before the
examination.
Accused- Jagdish Siyag (Bail Appl. No.6387/2024):-
5. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the allegation against the
accused petitioner as per the charge-sheet is that Varsha,
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (16 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]who is niece of the accused petitioner appeared as a dummy
candidate for candidates namely; Bhagwati and Indubala and
the petitioner managed these things in exchange of Rs.15
lakh. Counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner is
in custody since 12.03.2024 and he has not been named in
the FIR. He further submitted that the accused petitioner is
posted as Reader of Police Inspector, Bharatpur and nothing
has been recovered from his possession during investigation.
He also submitted that there is no evidence on record so as
to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences
except the information given by him under section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, which cannot be the sole ground for
conviction. He also submitted that the candidate Bhagwati is
the real sister of the petitioner and candidate Indubala is the
first cousin of the petitioner and Varsha who is alleged to
have appeared as a dummy candidate for both of them, is
niece of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned
Special Public Prosecutor submitted that on interrogation the
accused Jagdish Siyag accepted the allegations and when he
was called for interrogation, he destroyed his phone.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted
that when the G-Mail of the accused petitioner was searched,
various documents were recovered including the photos of
various candidates, their signatures etc., as is evident from
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (17 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
the recovery memo. He has placed these documents on
record along-with the status report dated 08.11.2024. He
further submitted that on bare perusal of the attendance
sheet of the candidates namely; Bhagwati Vishnoi, Indubala
and Varsha Kumar and the photos affixed on these sheets
from the time of submitting the application forms and those
taken during the examination clearly speaks that Varsha
Kumari appeared as a dummy candidate for the candidates
namely; Indubala and Bhagwati Vishnoi. He also submitted
that the signatures and other hand written material on the
attendance sheet of Bhagwati Vishnoi and Indubala have
been found to be of Varsha Kumari on getting the FSL report.
He also submitted that the material collected during
investigation clearly speaks that the accused petitioner
Jagdish Siyag is kin pin in making arrangements for
appearance of Varsha Kumari as a candidate for candidates
namely; Bhagwati Vishnoi and Indubala.
Accused- Karanpal Godara (Bail Appl. No.6717/2024) :-
7. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in
custody since 05.03.2024 and the offences alleged against
the accused petitioner are triable by Magistrate.
Counsel further submitted that no recovery at the
instance of the accused petitioner has been made in
accordance with section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (18 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
He submitted that for a statement under section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act to be admissible, it should lead to the
discovery of a fact, the discovery must be based solely on the
accused’s knowledge and the discovered item must have
material relevance and a direct connection to the crime. In
support of his submissions, the counsel has referred the
judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Navaneethankrishnan v. State of Inspector of Police,
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161 and also the judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, reported
in (2002) 2 SCC 490, and submitted that the loose slips are
not an admissible piece of paper and have no evidentiary
value.
Counsel also submitted that no grounds of arrest
were given out to the accused petitioner at the time of arrest.
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with section 50
CrPC provides that the grounds of arrest are to be intimated
to the accused while making his arrest. In this regard,
counsel referred the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 as also the
judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the case of
Mahesh Pandurang Naik Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (19 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
& Anr. (Writ Petition (ST) 13835 of 2024) decided on
18.07.2024.
Counsel has also submitted that as regards the
allegations against the accused petitioner, offences under
sections 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 are not made out.
Counsel submitted that the accused being a genuine
candidate is out of the scope of all these sections and he has
not procured the examination paper at all. He also submitted
that the allegation against the accused petitioner is that he
read the solved paper of the SI examination on the mobile on
the very same day, soon before the examination. As per the
averments made in the FIR, the question papers were leaked
by some persons then these papers were gotten solved by
another person and thereafter, the same were sent to the
mobile phones of certain candidates. The examination papers
were received at the Centers just two hours prior to the
commencement of the examination and a candidate has to
enter the examination center about 45 minutes prior to
commencement of the examination. In such a case a
candidate hardly gets 40 minutes gap in between this process
and it is not possible for a candidate to read the whole solved
paper and then attempt the same in the examination.
Normally it is quite impracticable to view a solved question
paper on a mobile phone and then remember the answer to
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (20 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
those questions answers and then even attempt the same in
the written examination.
8. On the other hand Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned
Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and
submitted a document which has been recovered at the
instance of the accused petitioner with the remark that Rs.1.5
lakh has been paid.
Accused- Ekta (Bail Appl. No.6728/2024):-
9. Mr. Madhav Mitra, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Jaya Mitra and Mr. Manan Sharma appearing for the accused
petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody
since 05.03.2024 and the allegation against her is that she
read the solved paper of SI competitive examination on the
mobile phone soon before commencement of the
examination. Senior Counsel further submitted that no
recovery of any document has been made at the instance of
the accused petitioner. He further submitted that it is highly
improbable to have actually committed the said offence,
looking at the timelines- i.e., the timeline of receiving the
paper at the center, procuring of the paper by co-accused
Unik Bhambhu, then getting it solved and supplying it to all
the handlers and then handlers travelling to the concerned
examination centers by road and to allow the candidates to
read it and memorise it and then for the concerned persons
to attempt the questions during the examination. He also
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (21 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
submitted that if at all the accused petitioner had gotten the
solved paper then she would have also made available the
same to her two sisters namely; Alka and Anita, who
appeared in the same examination but could not qualify the
written examination. He also submitted that there is no
evidence of money transaction connecting the accused
petitioner with the alleged offences.
Senior Counsel further submitted that the husband
of the accused petitioner has undergone a kidney transplant
where the donor was her mother-in-law and thus, the
mother-in-law is bed ridden and the husband is under
recovery with no-one to look after them. It is also submitted
that the petitioner is a lady having a young child at home and
deserves liberty under section 437 CrPC/ 480 BNSS. Senior
Counsel has also referred to the principle that bail is the rule
and the jail is the exception.
10. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that there is ample evidence on record collected
during investigation which proves that the accused petitioner
read the solved question papers which were leaked by other
accused persons.
Accused- Manohar Lal (Bail Appl. No.7340/2024):-
11. Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat counsel appearing for
the accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (22 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
is in custody since 05.03.2024 and the offences alleged
against the petitioner are triable by Magistrate. He further
submitted that no recovery has been made at the instance of
the accused petitioner. He also submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner is of reading leaked solved
question papers on WhatsApp but there is no such evidence
collected during investigation which connects the accused
petitioner with the crime.
12. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that
the attendance sheet of the accused petitioner has been
recovered with remarks about the payment of some amount.
He also submitted that the mobile phone of the petitioner was
recovered with his own named SIM but there is no data on
the same.
Accused- Surendra Kumar (Bail Appl. No.7351/2024) :-
13. Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat counsel appearing for
the accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner
is in custody since 05.03.2024 and the offences alleged
against the petitioner are triable by Magistrate. He further
submitted that no recovery has been made at the instance of
the accused petitioner. He also submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner is of reading leaked solved
question papers on WhatsApp but there is no such evidence
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (23 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
collected during investigation which connects the accused
petitioner with the crime.
14. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that
the attendance sheet of the accused petitioner has been
recovered with remarks about the payment of some amount.
He also submitted that the mobile phone of the petitioner was
recovered with his own named SIM but there is no data on
the same.
Accused- Rohitashwa Kumar (Bail Appl. No.7364/2024):-
15. Mr. Kinshuk Jain counsel appearing for the accused
petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody
since 05.03.2024 and the offences alleged against the
petitioner are triable by Magistrate. He further submitted that
no recovery has been made at the instance of the accused
petitioner. He also submitted that the allegation against the
accused petitioner is of reading leaked solved question papers
on WhatsApp but there is no such evidence collected during
investigation which connects the accused petitioner with the
crime. Counsel further submitted that the reasons for arrest
were not stated either. Counsel submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner is that a document was
recovered from his house with remarks about amount.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (24 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
16. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that
from the house of the accused petitioner a slip in regard to
making payment of Rs.10 lakh to co-accused Unik Bhambhoo
@ Pankaj Choudhary has been recovered. The handwriting of
the accused petitioner is on the aforesaid slip. He further
submitted that after recovery of the slip, the handwriting of
the petitioner was taken and both were sent to the FSL
Department and as per the report of the FSL Department, the
writing on the said slip was found to be of accused petitioner.
Accused- Harkhu (Bail Appl. No.7819/2024):-
17. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody
since 03.04.2024, though she has not been named in the FIR.
Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents and the offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner are triable by the Magistrate.
Counsel further submitted that nothing has been recovered
from the petitioner and the only evidence against the
petitioner is that of giving information by her under section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel further submitted that
other than this there is not an iota of evidence against the
petitioner to implicate her in this case. Counsel also
submitted that the petitioner being a woman, has a special
consideration under the proviso to section 437(1) CrPC/480
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (25 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
BNSS deserves to be released on bail as the charge-sheet has
already been filed in this case and no investigation is pending
against her. Counsel further submitted that the phone of the
accused petitioner was seized but nothing was recovered
from her mobile. Counsel further submitted that except
interrogation report, there is no other evidence against the
accused petitioner. Counsel submitted that in regard to
accused petitioner, no other documents have been enclosed
by the Investigating Agency with the charge-sheet.
18. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that
the accused petitioner through Narpat Lal managed to get his
wife Indu @ Indubala @ Induprabha to appear as a dummy
candidate in the written examination of SI in her place and
she cleared the exam with Merit No.1655. He further
submitted that the accused petitioner at her own will gave
information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that
she can show the place where she gave her Aadhar Card, two
photos and Rs.5 lakh to Narpat Lal Vishnoi. Learned Special
Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused
petitioner has also stated that she got the deal for a sum of
Rs. 20 lakh. It was also stated by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that the original attendance sheet was seized and
the signatures on the attendance sheet along-with the
original signatures of the accused petitioner taken during
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (26 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
investigation, were sent to the FSL Department for report.
The report from the FSL Department has been received
wherein it has been observed that the signatures of the
accused petitioner on the attendance sheet do not match with
her signatures taken during investigation, which clearly
speaks that the accused petitioner herself did not appear in
the written examination but she allowed dummy candidate to
appear in the examination.
Accused- Chetan Singh Meena (Bail Appl.No.8281/2024):
19. Dr. Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner
is in custody since 03.04.2024 and the offences alleged
against him are triable by the Magistrate. Counsel also
submitted that the allegation against the accused petitioner is
that he allowed the dummy candidate to appear in the written
examination for the post of SI in his place. Counsel also
submitted that there is no evidence against the accused
petitioner collected during investigation so as to connect him
with the alleged offence except the information alleged to
have been recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence on
record in regard to the money transaction made by the
accused petitioner. Counsel in support of his submissions has
placed reliance upon following judgments:-
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (27 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
1. Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No.
3173 of 2024), decided on 13.08.2024; and
2. Dheerap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal
Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.2077/2024) & Other connected
bail applications, decided on 5.7.2024.
20. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the allegations against the accused petitioner
are of serious nature as he allowed the dummy candidate to
appear in his place in the written examination for the post of
SI. It has also been submitted that the accused petitioner
managed through one of the accused namely; Hanuman
Meena for Rs.15 lakh and one Suresh Vishnoi appeared as a
dummy candidate for Chetan. It has also been submitted that
Suresh Vishnoi has also been arrayed as an accused and he is
absconding.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted
that the handwriting of the accused petitioner obtained during
investigation and photo along-with the original attendance
sheet in the name of the accused petitioner were sent for the
handwriting expert’s report to the FSL Department. The
handwriting expert report has been received and it is found
that the handwriting of the accused petitioner obtained during
investigation does not match with his signatures and other
written material available on the attendance sheet.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (28 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Accused- Dinesh Singh Chouhan (Bail Appl.
No.8748/2024):
21. Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in
custody since 02.06.2024. Counsel submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is that him being the owner
of the School appointed Rajaram @ Raju Matrix as an
Invigilator so as to leak the question paper for the written
examination of SI. Counsel also submitted that there is no
role of the accused petitioner which can be said to be an
offence. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence as
regards the malafide and deliberate intention of the accused
petitioner in appointment of Rajaram @ Raju Matrix as an
Invigilator.
22. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the accused petitioner is the Director of
Ramsahay Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Bikaner and
under a pre-planned conspiracy, he appointed Rajaram @
Raju Matrix as an Invigilator in the written examination
scheduled on 13.09.2021 and thereafter Rajaram @ Raju
Matrix with the aid of Dinesh Singh Chouhan (present
accused petitioner) got the photos of question paper clicked
and sent it on WhatsApp to Paurav Kaler. He further
submitted that after procuring the photo of the question
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (29 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
paper, Paurav Kaler sent it for solutions to Naresh Dan Charan
and Praveen Kumar. He submitted that the documents related
to appointment of Rajaram @ Raju Matrix as Invigilator by
Dinesh Singh Chouhan have been recovered. He submitted
that the accused petitioner has also given certain information
which has been recorded under section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act which clearly speaks of the role of the accused
petitioner in leakage of the paper. He further submitted that
two other criminal cases of similar nature are pending against
the accused petitioner.
Accused- Rajaram @ Raju Matrix (Bail Appl. No.
8749/2024):
23. Mr. Ashish Chauhan counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed
any offence as alleged against him. Counsel further submitted
that the accused petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2021. It
has also been contended by the counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner that FIRs have already been registered at
Bikaner and Pali as regards same allegations and act,
therefore, the accused petitioner cannot be prosecuted in a
third case for the same act. Counsel in support of his
submissions has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kripal Vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2107.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (30 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
24. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the accused petitioner is running a Coaching
Center and under a pre-planned conspiracy he was
appointed as an Invigilator by the Director of Ramsahay
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Bikaner and thereafter with
the aid of other co-accused persons, the accused-petitioner
leaked the paper.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted
that already three other criminal cases of similar nature are
pending against the accused petitioner.
Accused- Ankita Godara (Bail Application
No.8750/2024):
25. Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, counsel appearing for
the accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner
is in custody since 08.06.2024 and the offences alleged
against her are triable by Magistrate. Counsel further
submitted that the allegation against the accused petitioner is
of answering the questions after getting the correct answers
from outside through Bluetooth device. Counsel submitted
that no CDR report has been recovered and thus, there is no
evidence on record so as to connect the accused petitioner
with the alleged offence.
26. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (31 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
submitted that during search of the residence of the accused
petitioner, a register was recovered wherein there is an entry
as regards payment of Rs.11.5 lakh to Paurav Kaler who
helped him in providing answers to the questions with the aid
of Bluetooth device during examination.
Accused- Premsukhi (Bail Application No.9183/2024):
27. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Savita Nathawat, appearing for the accused petitioner
submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody since
5.3.2024 and the offences alleged against the accused
petitioner are triable by Magistrate. Senior Advocate further
submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 901
days. Senior Advocate also submitted that no offence of
cheating or forgery is made out against the accused
petitioner. Senior Advocate further submitted that charge-
sheet relies solely on information collected under section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, which is inadmissible in court as
the information provided did not lead to the discovery of any
new fact.
Senior Advocate also submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner is that the question paper was
shown to the accused petitioner in a hotel on a mobile phone,
whereas in the charge-sheet the place where question paper
was shown is mentioned to be Mamaji Haveli Chowk at the
temple, Udaipur to five people within 15 minutes. It is highly
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (32 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
impractical that five persons read the solved question paper
on a mobile set that too in a very short span of about 40
minutes, as, the candidates are required to reach the Center
an hour before examination. Senior Counsel submitted that
the admit card on which the transaction detail was written, is
fabricated and objection in regard to the same was duly
raised during the remand which was recorded in the remand
order dated 18.03.2024.
Senior Counsel also submitted that there is no
substantive evidence against the accused petitioner in the
charge-sheet. Senior Counsel further submitted that the FSL
report is in favour of the accused petitioner.
Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is
a lady and she is having a daughter aged about four years
and for women there is a special provision under section 437
CrPC, which also applies to section 439 CrPC. Senior counsel
submitted that the child of the accused petitioner is in a
miserable condition as she is not getting proper care which is
very important at such a minor age.
Senior Counsel has referred to the definition of
‘unfair means’ given under the Act of 1992 and stated that no
such alleged act of the accused petitioner is an offence as per
the provisions of the Act of 1992 because the alleged act is
not of the time when she was answering the questions as has
been mentioned in Section 3 of the Act of 1992 read with
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (33 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
definition of ‘unfair means’ therein. It is also submitted that
considering the lacunae in the Act of 1992 as regards the
offences of definition of ‘unfair means’, the Legislature made
more clarifications in the definition of ‘unfair means’ as
provided in the Amendment Act, 2022. He further submitted
that when there are two versions; one which is in favour of
the accused is to be read. Learned Senior Counsel has also
contended that the accused petitioner has not been given
the reasons for her arrest as required under section 50 CrPC.
He also submitted that no recovery has been made on the
information given by the accused petitioner under section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, however, the alleged i-Phone has
been seized by the police while making search of the house of
the petitioner at Jodhpur under section 165 CrPC. He has also
submitted the report of the handwriting expert which is only a
corroborative piece of evidence which cannot be the sole
basis for convicting the accused petitioner. In support of his
submissions, Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the
judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Padum Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal No. 87 of 2020), decided on 14.01.2020.
28. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that
she along-with four other candidates, were shown the solved
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (34 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
question papers by an associate of Unique Bhambhu in a
hotel on his mobile phone. He submitted that the accused-
petitioner chose the examination centre at a nearby school
and later on, out of five people only two passed the
examination, securing merit rank 72 and started training at
RPA, Jaipur.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that
the petitioner contacted Jagdish Bishnoi and agreed to pay to
him Rs. 7 lakh for her assistance. The accused petitioner
provided Rs. 2 lakh and her admit card through intermediary,
on 15.09.2021, before the examination. He further submitted
that the petitioner along-with others, were shown the solved
question papers by an associate of Unique Bhambhu at
Mamaji Ka Chowk in temple at Udaipur. He also submitted
that the act of the accused petitioner is covered under section
4 of the Act of 1992.
Accused- Abhishek Vishnoi (Bail Appl. No.9720/2024):
29. Mr. Ishan Kasliwal, counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in
judicial custody since 03.04.2024 and he has not been named
in the FIR. Counsel also submitted that the alleged offences
are triable by Magistrate and no offence of cheating or
forgery is made out against the accused petitioner. Counsel
further submitted that charge-sheet relies solely on
information collected under section 27 of the Indian Evidence
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (35 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]Act, which is inadmissible in Court as the information
provided did not lead to the discovery of a new fact.
Counsel further submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner, that he was shown the
question paper in a Creta Car, is baseless as no such car was
recovered by the police nor the information given by the
petitioner under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
mentions the same. Counsel submitted that there is no
substantive evidence against the accused petitioner in the
charge-sheet.
Counsel also submitted that a 96 pages red diary
was seized from the petitioner’s house, containing an entry
on page No.15, which is similar to diaries and admit cards
seized from other co-accused with similar entries and in this
regard objection was raised by the accused petitioner during
his remand by the police. In support of his submissions,
counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra
Vs. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2012) 1 SCC 40 as consideration of bail while matter is
affecting the society at large.
30. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that from the residence of the accused petitioner
the police seized 96-pages diary, with an entry on page 15
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (36 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
stating ‘Police SI’ and ‘gave Rs.15 lakh to Govindji Neemli’,
also seized a question paper labeled ‘History II Code 83’,
admit card for the SI recruitment examination 2021 and
photocopies of the admission form and the recruitment
advertisement released by the RPSC. He further submitted
that in the information given by the accused petitioner under
section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he stated the fact of
having been shown the leaked paper by him and where he
paid Rs.15 lakh to Govind Panwar in Jodhpur and also the call
details of five persons in between Sharwanram Bishnoi and
him from 9.9.2022 to 15.02.2024. He also submitted that the
accused-petitioner is posted as Constable in Police
Department.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the evidence sent for FSL examination on 22.05.2024
includes disputed signatures and undisputed documents,
handwriting samples, control images and videos, a mobile
phone, a red diary, the original attendance sheet and OMR
sheet of Roll No. 552064 and there is an expert report to
substantiate the allegations.
Accused- Rajeshwari (Bail Appl. No.11330/2024):
31. Mr. Madhav Mitra Senior Counsel with Ms. Jaya
Mitra, appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the
accused petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.04.2024 and
she has not been named in the FIR. Counsel also submitted
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (37 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and no
offence of cheating or forgery is made out against the
accused petitioner. Senior Counsel also submitted that there
is no evidence of money transaction pertaining to the
petitioner.
Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a
lady having a young child at home and deserves liberty under
Section 437 CrPC. Senior Counsel further submitted that the
criminal bail jurisprudence provides that bail is the rule and
jail is the exception. The presumption of innocence lies in
favour of the petitioner until the accused petitioner is proven
guilty after appreciation of evidence in the trial. Senior
Counsel also submitted that there are innumerable
pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court that no under trial
prisoner should be imprisoned for an indefinite period
pending trial especially when the offences are triable by
Magistrate.
Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner is that she was allowed to read
the leaked solved paper on the mobile of a handler before the
examination in which she appeared, is not trustworthy in
ordinary course.
Senior Counsel also submitted that there was no
discovery of fact in pursuance to the information received
under Section 27 of Evidence Act as recovery of the place of
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (38 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
examination centre and the place where she allegedly read
the paper, is no recovery, more particularly not at all a
recovery of new fact.
Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no
recovery whatsoever from the petitioner except a single piece
of paper, which was recovered during search as per Section
55 CrPC on which it was allegedly written that Rs. 10 lakhs
are to be given to Jagdish Jiyani; Rs. 3 lakhs are to be given
to one Sunil Beniwal; Rs. 2 lakhs were given to the person
who made available the paper for reading and who was
deemed to be the man involved with Jagdish Jiyani. Senior
Counsel also submitted that no person of reasonable mind
would take out a single paper, write this information on the
same and leave it to be discovered by the agency even if it is
considered that the agency is levelling true allegations.
Senior counsel also submitted that a mobile phone
was recovered on 17.03.2024 from which nothing of
relevance could be found by the agency.
32. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that some papers were recovered/ seized on the
information given by the accused petitioner under section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act which speaks of money
transactions. He also submitted that the writing on the
documents were sent to FSL Department for handwriting
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (39 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
expert and the handwriting on those documents have been
found to be of the accused petitioner. He also stated that the
hotel where the accused petitioner stayed, was also seized.
Accused-Praveen Kumar (Bail Appl. No.11531/2024):
33. Ms. Kanika Burman counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in
custody since 2.6.2024 and he has not been named in the
FIR. Counsel submitted, the offences against the accused
petitioner are triable by Magistrate. Counsel also submitted
that the accused petitioner was a teacher of Science and
Maths. Counsel further submitted that there is no recovery of
money or solved paper from the information received from
the accused petitioner u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Counsel also submitted that there is no clarity whether the
amount mentioned is for solving the leaked paper or for any
other institutional work as the accused petitioner was
teaching in Chanakya Coaching run by Paurav Kaler. Counsel
also submitted that there is no recovery of money or solved
paper from the accused-petitioner.
Counsel also submitted that the wife of the accused
petitioner Renu Godara also appeared in the written
examination on the post of SI and if the accused petitioner
would have leaked the question paper then he would have
helped his wife to qualify the written examination but on
declaration of the result, it was revealed that she did not
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (40 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
qualify, which shows that the allegations against the accused
petitioner are false and fabricated. Counsel also submitted
that the accused petitioner is working on the post of Auditor
in the Auditor General Office and there are no chances of his
absconding and if the accused petitioner is not released on
bail, his service career will also be ruined.
34. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that a statement of account maintained by the
accused petitioner has been recovered which is in his own
handwriting. He also submitted that it has also come on
record that the accused petitioner was having dispute with his
wife, and therefore, he may not have communicated the
leaked paper to his wife. He also submitted that the
statements of money transactions recovered at the instance
of the accused petitioner speak of involvement of the accused
petitioner in the issue of paper leakage in other recruitments
also. He also submitted that one more criminal case is also
pending against the accused petitioner.
Accused-Bhagwati Vishnoi (Bail Appl. No.11837/2024):
35. Mr. S.S. Hora, counsel appearing for the accused
petitioner submitted that accused petitioner is in custody
since 5.3.2024 and the offences alleged against the accused
petitioner are triable by Magistrate. Counsel further
submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 901
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (41 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
days. Counsel also submitted that no offence of cheating or
forgery is made out against the accused petitioner. Counsel
further submitted that charge-sheet relies solely on
information collected under section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, which is inadmissible in court as the information provided
did not lead to the discovery of new fact.
Counsel also submitted that there is no substantive
evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. Counsel
also submitted that the petitioner is the mother of a 1.5 years
old son and because of being in custody her son is falling sick
time to time. Counsel further submitted that the child of the
petitioner is in miserable condition as he is not getting proper
care which is very important at such a minor age. Counsel
also submitted that the FSL report of the petitioner cannot be
considered as the conclusive evidence at this stage.
Counsel also submitted that the allegations against
the accused petitioner is of allowing a dummy candidate to
appear in the written examination for recruitment on the post
of SI in her place and such allegation is purely false because
the accused petitioner herself has appeared in the written
examination.
36. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the original admit card and the attendance
sheet of the accused petitioner have been seized and it is
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (42 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
found that the photo on the attendance sheet affixed at the
time of appearing in the examination does not match with the
photo of the accused petitioner. It is also submitted that the
signatures on the attendance sheet do not match with the
signatures of the accused petitioner as per the handwriting
expert’s report.
Accused- Hanuman Prasad (Bail Appl.No.12558/2024):
37. Dr. Mahesh Sharma, counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in
custody since 23.06.2024, the charge-sheet has already been
submitted on 29.07.2024 and the alleged offences against
him are triable by Magistrate.
Counsel also submitted that the allegation against
the accused petitioner is that he arranged dummy candidates
to appear in the written examination in place of original
candidates, though there is no such evidence on record which
connects the accused petitioner with the allegations levelled
against him.
38. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the accused petitioner arranged dummy
candidate Suresh Vishnoi in place of Chetan Singh Meena. He
also submitted that seven other criminal cases are also
pending against the accused petitioner, out of which five
cases are of similar nature related to other recruitments.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (43 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Accused- Neeraj Kumar (Bail Appl. No.13393/2024):
39. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is in
custody since 09.10.2024 and the allegation against him is
that he got the solved leaked paper of SI recruitment written
examination on WhatsApp and thereafter appeared in the
written examination. He also submitted that the allegation
against the accused petitioner are false and fabricated and
there is no evidence on record so as to connect him with the
alleged offence. He further submitted that the alleged
offences are triable by Magistrate. Counsel also submitted
that no mobile phone has been recovered from the
possession of the accused petitioner and even no any
examination paper has been recovered which is allegedly sent
on the petitioner’s WhatsApp for a consideration of Rs.20
lakh. Counsel further submitted that the allegation against
the accused petitioner is that the father of the accused-
petitioner borrowed a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from the bank with
Kisan credit card and paid part of that maximum amount for
getting leaked paper. However, the same allegation fails on
its face because the accused petitioner’s father had KCC
account opened and running since year 2012. Counsel also
submitted that it is not the case of the Investigating Agency
that the account has been opened by the accused petitioner’s
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (44 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
father only for this purpose. Thus, the theory of prosecution
fails.
Counsel also submitted that the accused petitioner
has not procured the examination paper at all, as the word
procure within the meaning u/s 4 of the Act of 1992 is only to
be made applicable against a facilitator who procured the
paper with intent to provide it to any third person, not for
self- consumption. Thus, the provision of section 4 of the Act
of 1992 does not apply to the accused petitioner.
Counsel further submitted that there has been no
explanation as to why the custody of the accused petitioner
was needed after almost seven months of registering the FIR.
Counsel also submitted that there has been no incriminating
evidence against the accused petitioner and further no
recovery has been made at the instant of the accused
petitioner.
40. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that
there is ample evidence on record so as to connect the
accused petitioner with the alleged crime. He also submitted
that the father of the accused petitioner borrowed a loan of
Rs. 30 lakh from the Bank with Kisan Credit Card and paid
part of that maximum amount for getting leaked paper.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (45 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
41. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public
Prosecutor assisted by Ms. Shreya Hathila, in support of his
submissions has placed reliance upon following orders:-
1. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5299/2024 and other
connected bail applications decided on 31.08.2024 by this
Court;
2. Daluram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, through PP (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2575/2024) decided on
25.06.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court;
3. Choturam Khadda @ Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 5662/2024), decided on
08.07.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court;
4. Dinesh Padwal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.11036/2024), decided on 19.09.2024 by
this Court;
5. Bheemsingh Vs. State of Rajsthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 14618/2023, decided on
04.03.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court; and
6. Vedpal Vs State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 1905.
42. Considered the submissions advanced by Senior
Counsels and other counsels appearing on behalf of the
accused petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor and
gone through the charge-sheet, factual report and other
material made available to the Court.
43. In the case of Navaneethakrishnan (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 26 and 27 has observed as
under:-
“26. Section 26 of the Evidence Act is applicable
only if the confessional statement leads to the
discovery of some new fact. The relevance is limited(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (46 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
In the case at hand, the Yashika Camera which was
recovered at the instance of Accused No. 3 was not
identified by the father as well as the mother of the
deceased. In fact, the prosecution is unable to prove
that the said camera actually belongs to the
deceased-John Bosco. Though the mobile phone is
recovered from A-1, but there is no evidence on
record establishing the fact that the cell phone
belongs to the deceased-John Bosco or to PW-8 as
the same was not purchased in their name. Further,
the prosecution failed to examine the person on
whose name the cell phone was purchased to show
that it originally belongs to PW-8 to prove the theory
of PW-8 that he had purchased and given it to the
deceased John-Bosco. Further, the material objects,
viz., Nokia phone and Motor Bike do not have any
bearing on the case itself. The Nokia phone was
recovered from Accused No. 1 and it is not the case
that it was used for the commission of crime and
similarly the motor cycle so recovered was of the
father of Accused No. 3 and no evidence has been
adduced or produced by the prosecution as to how
these objects have a bearing on the case. In fact,
none of the witnesses have identified the camera or
stated the belongings of John Bosco. The said
statements are inadmissible in spite of the mandate
contained in Section 27 for the simple reason that it
cannot be stated to have resulted in the discovery of
some new fact. The material objects which the
police is claimed to have recovered from the accused
may well have been planted by the police. Hence, in
the absence of any connecting link between the(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (47 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]crime and the things recovered, there recovery on
the behest of accused will not have any material
bearing on the facts of the case.
27. The law is well settled that each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly
established by reliable and clinching evidence and
the circumstances so proved must form a chain of
events from which the only irresistible conclusion
about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn
and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.
In a case depending largely upon circumstantial
evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture
or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The
court must satisfy itself that various circumstances
in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
accused. When the important link goes, the chain of
circumstances gets snapped and the other
circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger
of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal
proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen
to be a short step between moral certainty and legal
proof. There is a long mental distance between “may
be true” and “must be true” and the same divides
conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in
mindful of caution by the settled principles of law
and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a
given case like this, where the prosecution rests on
the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must
place and prove all the necessary circumstances,
which would constitute a complete chain without a
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (48 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the
accused, no one had committed the offence, which
in the present case, the prosecution has failed to
prove.”
44. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 19, 22, 25 and 28 has held as
under:-
“19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the
court that any person arrested for allegation of
commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA
or for that matter any other offence(s) has a
fundamental and a statutory right to be informed
about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of
such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished
to the arrested person as a matter of course and
without exception at the earliest. The purpose of
informing to the arrested person the grounds of
arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this
information would be the only effective means for the
arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the
police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other
interpretation would tantamount to diluting the
sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
22. The learned ASG referred to the language of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and urged
that even in a case of preventive detention, the
constitutional scheme does not require that the
grounds on which the order of detention has been
passed should be communicated to the detenu in(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (49 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]writing. Ex facie, we are not impressed with the said
submission.
25. Further, this Court in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v.
Union of India [Lallubhai Jogibhai Pate v. Union of
India, (1981) 2 SCC 427 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 463] , laid
down that the grounds of detention must be
communicated to the detenu in writing in a language
which he understands and if the grounds are only
verbally explained, the constitutional mandate of
Article 22(5) is infringed. The relevant para is
extracted hereunder : (SCC p. 436, para 20)“20. … “Communicate” is a strong word. It means
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the “grounds” should be imparted
effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a
language which he understands. The whole purpose
of communicating the “ground” to the detenu is to
enable him to make a purposeful and effective
representation. If the “grounds” are only verbally
explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left
with him, in a language which he understands, then
that purpose is not served, and the constitutional
mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed.”
28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the
communication of the grounds is exactly the
identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions
require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”,
as the case may be, must be communicated in
writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet
of the fundamental right as made by the
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (50 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Constitution Bench while examining the scope of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso
facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India insofar as the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest is concerned.”
45. In the case of Mahesh Pandurang Naik (supra),
the Bombay High Court in para 24 has held as under:-
“24. The decisions of the Apex Court in Pankaj
Bansal Vs. Union of India and in Prabir Purkayastha
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), which now is the law
declared by the Apex Court, in the wake of Article
141 of the Constitution of India, bind all the Courts
within the territory of India. Similarly, in terms of
Article 144, since all the authorities, civil and
judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the
Supreme Court, the law shall be followed by all
concerned, including the Courts as well as the
authorities exercising the power of arrest.
In light of the elucidation of law in the above
manner, the focus being clause (1) of Article 22 of
the Constitution of India, when we have examined
the present case, it is evident that the grounds of
arrest were not furnished to the Petitioner in writing
and the arrest/surrender form/panchnama produced
before us, column 8 is an unfilled column, which in
fact expected the arresting authority to ensure,
“whether the arrested person, after being informed
of the grounds of arrest and his legal rights, was
duly taken into custody on —(date) — (hours) —-
(place)”. The form only indicate that the intimation
of arrest was given to Laxmi Pandurang Naik,(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (51 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]mother of the Petitioner. The station diary entry
record that note of his arrest has been taken in the
concerned Register and he was apprised of the
reasons of arrest and, thereafter, he was arrested.
The procedure followed by Respondent No.2 is
evidently in violation of sub-clause (1) of Article 22
of the Constitution of India and, since, this
provision now stands interpreted by the Apex Court
in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and in the wake of the
declaration, coming into effect from 03/10/2023,
any arrest made thereafter must ensure
compliance, by indicating the ‘ground(s) of arrest in
writing’ expeditiously.
The ratio aid down by he Apex Court having been
declared to be law of land, binding on all courts of
the country, by virtue o Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, needless to state, must be
followed by each and every one, including any
officer/person/magistrate, before effecting arrest of
a person, in any case, where his arrest is deemed
necessary and this ground shall contain all such
details in the hand of the Investigating Officer,
which necessitated the arrest of the accused.”
46. In the case of Pandurang Kalu Patil (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court in para 5 has observed as under:-
“5. Even the recent decision in State of Maharashtra
v. Damn, [2000] 6 SCC 269 this Court followed
Pulikuri Kottaya with approval. The fallacy
committed by the Division Bench as per the
impugned judgment is possibly on account of(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (52 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]truncating the word “fact” in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act from the adjoining word “discovered”.
The essence of Section 27 is that it was enacted as
a proviso to the two preceding Sections (see Sec.
25 and 26) which imposed a complete ban on the
admissibility of any confession made by an accused
either to the police or to any one while the accused
is in police custody. The object of making a
provision in Section 27 was to permit a certain
portion of the statement made by an accused to a
police officer admissible in evidence whether or not
such statement is confessional or non-confessional.
Nonetheless he ban against admissibility would
stand lifted if the statement distinctly related to a
discovery of fact. A fact can be discovered by the
police (investigating) officer) pursuant to an
information elicited from the accused if such
disclosure was followed by one or more of a variety
of causes. Recovery of an object is only one such
cause. Recovery, or even production of object by
itself need not necessarily result in discovery of a
fact. That is why way Sir John Beaumont said in
Pulikuri Kottaya that “it is fallacious to treat the fact
discovered in the section as equivalent to the object
produced”. The following sentence of the learned
law lord in the said decision, though terse, is
eloquent in conveying the message highlighting the
pith of the ratio:(AIR p. 70, para 10)
“Information supplied by the person in
custody that ‘I will produce a knife
concealed in the roof of my house’ does not
lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were
discovered many years ago. It leads to the
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (53 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
discovery of the fact that a knife is
concealed in the house of the informant to
his knowledge and if the knife is proved to
have been used in the commission of the
offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.
(emphasis supplied)”
47. In the case of Dayal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal (Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2010) decided
on 03.08.2012, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 34 has held
as under:-
“34. We really need not reiterate various judgments
which have taken the view that the purpose of an
expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in
arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not
binding upon the Court. The Court is expected to
analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the
other evidence on record and then form its final
opinion as to whether such report is worthy of
reliance or not. Just to illustrate this point of view, in
a given case, there may be two diametrically
contradictory opinions of handwriting experts and
both the opinions may be well reasoned. In such
case, the Court has to critically examine the basis,
reasoning, approach and experience of the expert to
come to a conclusion as to which of the two reports
can be safely relied upon by the Court. The
assistance and value of expert opinion is
indisputable, but there can be reports which are, ex
facie, incorrect or deliberately so distorted as to
render the entire prosecution case unbelievable. But(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (54 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]if such eye-witnesses and other prosecution
evidence are trustworthy, have credence and are
consistent with the eye version given by the eye-
witnesses, the Court will be well within its
jurisdiction to discard the expert opinion. An expert
report, duly proved, has its evidentiary value but
such appreciation has to be within the limitations
prescribed and with careful examination by the
Court. A complete contradiction or inconsistency
between the medical evidence and the ocular
evidence on the one hand and the statement of the
prosecution witnesses between themselves on the
other, may result in seriously denting the case of the
prosecution in its entirety but not otherwise.”
48. In the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in para 16 has held as under:-
“17. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into
the correctness or otherwise of the allegations
made against the appellant. This is a matter that
will, of course, be dealt with by the trial judge.
However, what is important, as far as we are
concerned, is that during the entire period of
investigations which appear to have been spread
over seven months, the appellant was not arrested
by the investigating officer. Even when the
appellant apprehended that he might be arrested
after the charge sheet was filed against him, he
was not arrested for a considerable period of time.
When he approached the Allahabad High Court for
quashing the FIR lodged against him, he was(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (55 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]granted two months time to appear before the trial
judge. All these facts are an indication that there
was no apprehension that the appellant would
abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner.
That being the case, the trial judge, as well as the
High Court ought to have judiciously exercised
discretion and granted bail to the appellant. It is
nobody’s case that the appellant is a shady
character and there is nothing on record to indicate
that the appellant had earlier been involved in any
unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged illegal
activity.”
49. In the case of Jalaluddin Khan (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court in para 21 has observed as under:-
“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must
mention here that the Special Court and the High
Court did not consider the material in the charge
sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on
the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s
case could not be properly appreciated. When a case
is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not
have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations
of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the
duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant
of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule
and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a
case like the present case where there are stringent
conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant
statutes, the same rule holds good with only
modification that the bail can be granted if the
conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (56 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]means that once a case is made out for the grant of
bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the
Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will
be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article
21 of our Constitution.”
50. In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 21, 23 and 24 has held as
under:-
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid
down from the earliest times that the object of bail is
to secure the appearance of the accused person at
his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation
of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it
can be required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every
man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and
duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of
the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has
a substantial punitive content and it would be
improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of former conduct whether the accused
has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a
taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (57 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
24. In the instant case, as we have already noticed
that the “pointing finger of accusation” against the
appellants is `the seriousness of the charge’. The
offences alleged are economic offences which has
resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they
contend that there is possibility of the appellants
tampering witnesses, they have not placed any
material in support of the allegation. In our view,
seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the
relevant considerations while considering bail
applications but that is not the only test or the factor
: The other factor that also requires to be taken note
of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial
and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code
and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the
former is the only test, we would not be balancing
the Constitutional Rights but rather “recalibration of
the scales of justice.”
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the
discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is
regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. But at the
same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely
because of the sentiments of the community against
the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a
criminal case are to relieve the accused of
imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of
keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time,
to keep the accused constructively in the custody of
the Court, whether before or after conviction, to
assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the
Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his
presence is required.”
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (58 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
51. In the case of Sachin Kumar Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand, reported in 2024 Supreme (Online) 6845,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“We have perused the counter affidavit and heard
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The offences alleged against the appellant are
punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3, 4, 6,
9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988. The
maximum sentence is of 10 years. At least 04 co-
accused have been granted bail.
The counter affidavit discloses that charge-sheet
has been filed and charge has been framed. 19
prosecution witnesses have been cited. The
offences are triable by the Court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate. The appellant has undergone
incarceration for a period of more than one and a
half years.
No antecedents of the appellant have been brought
on record.
Therefore, in our view, the appellant deserves to be
enlarge on bail, pending the final disposal of the
case.
For that purpose, we direct that the appellant shall
be produced before the Trial Court within a period
of one week from today. The Trial Court shall
enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms
and conditions till the final disposal of the case.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (59 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
Needless to add that, if the appellant misuses the
liberty granted to him under the order of bail, it will
always be open for the respondent-State to apply
for cancellation of bail.”
52. In the case of Ram Kripal (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court in paras 5 and 7 has held as under:-
“5. The trial is yet to commence and we are
informed that there are nearly 200 witnesses to be
examined. The conclusion of trial will take
considerably long period. The High Court has denied
bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has
criminal antecedents as following cases are pending
against petitioner :–
(i) FIR No. 756 of 2014 under Sections 341, 323
IPC registered at Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur
and
(ii) FIR No. 220 of 2015 under Sections 420,
406,447,468,471IPC registered at Police Station
Shiprapath, Jaipur.
7. Having heard learned senior counsel/counsel for
the parties and taking into consideration the period
spent by the petitioner in the custody and the fact
that the conclusion of trial will take some time, but
without expressing any views on the merits, we
direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject
to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial court. In addition to the conditions which may
be imposed by the trial court, the petitioner shall :–
(i) deposit the passport, if any, with the trial court.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (60 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
(ii) shall not absent from the dates of hearing unless
expressly exempted by the Court.
(iii) shall fully cooperate with the trial proceedings
and shall not cause any delay.
(iv) shall not make direct or indirect attempt to
influence the prosecution witnesses and
(v) The immovable property of the petitioner and his
family members shall remain attached, the details
whereof shall be furnished by the petitioner within
one week after the petitioner is released on bail.”
53. In the case of Satish @ Kaku Vs. State of U.P.
(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47343 of 2023)
decided on 5.1.2024, the Allahabad High Court in para 10
has observed as under:-
“10. The object of the bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused, the detention of the
accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as
there is presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any
facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the
character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that
his mere presence at large would intimidate the
witness.”
54. The Coordinate Bench of Principal Seat, at Jodhpur
in the case of Dheerap Singh (supra), has held in para 5
and 7 as under:-
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (61 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
“5. If it is an information under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, something is required to be recovered
or discovered in pursuance of the information
supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which
distinctly relates to the commission of the crime. It
is the admitted case of prosecution that in
pursuance of the information furnished under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the
culpability of the petitioners, nothing new was
disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of
the view that at least there must be some
corroborations or support to verify the confession
made by the accused to the Police Officer while in
lockup.
7. It can be manifested from a simple reading of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgments
referred above that only information in the form of
confession received from disclosure (5 of 5)
[CRLMB-2077/2024] made by an accused cannot be
taken as reliable piece of evidence in isolation until
there is a discovery or a recovery or another fact to
corroborate the said information and prove its
veracity. Precisely, it can be said that Section 27 of
Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24, 25 and
26 of Evidence Act, however, the exception limits its
admissibility only upto what is envisaged in the
statute itself and not beyond that. This Court is
cognizant of the provisions contained in Section 37
of the NDPS Act but considering the submissions
made by learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners regarding him being made an accused
only on the basis of statement of co-accused, this
court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (62 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
bail to the accused petitioners. Be that as it may, no
final observations and comments can be made at
this stage, as the same may influence the course of
trial.”
55. On consideration of the submissions made by the
counsels appearing for the accused petitioners as well as the
learned Special Public Prosecutor and perusal of the status
report submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and
also the contents of the charge-sheet, the gist of the
allegations against the accused petitioners are that some
persons after making certain arrangements in conspiracy with
various other persons captured photos of the question papers
from the strong-room and thereafter got it solved by another
person and distributed to the handlers to circulate it to the
candidates who are to appear in the written examination for
recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector through What’s App
messages or allowed certain candidates to read the solved
paper on their mobiles and certain candidates who are the
petitioners, read the solved papers either on the mobile of
handlers or after receiving on What’s App messages and
thereafter appeared in the written examination and answered
the questions.
Out of 19 accused petitioners, the allegation
against one of the accused petitioner- Ankita Godara is of
using Bluetooth device while answering the questions in the
written examination with the aid of other accused.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (63 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
The allegation against one of the accused
petitioner- Dinesh Singh Chouhan, who is the Director of the
School where there was a Center of the written examination
and he got appointed Rajaram @ Raju Matrix (one of the
accused petitioner) as an Invigilator so as to get the leaked
the question papers, though Rajram @ Raju Matrix was not
staff member of the school. Two other criminal cases are
pending against petitioner-Dinesh Singh Chouhan and three
other criminal cases are pending against accused petitioner-
Rajaram @ Raju Matrix. As per the investigation report, prima
facie this Court finds vital role of these two accused
petitioners in process of leakage of question paper.
The allegation against the accused petitioner-
Girdhariram is of appearing as a dummy candidate in place of
one Vikramjeet and the signatures and other material on the
attendance sheet of Vikramjeet recorded at the time of
examination matches with the handwriting of the accused
petitioner-Girdhariram.
The allegation against accused petitioner- Jagdish
Siyag is that he arranged Varsha to appear as a dummy
candidate in the written examination in place of original
candidate Bhagwati and Indubala and the SOG has recovered
various documents from his G-Mail account so as to
substantiate the allegations. Except this case, one other
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (64 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
criminal case is also pending against accused petitioner
-Jagdish Siyag.
The allegation against the accused petitioners-
Karanpal Godara, Ekta, Manohar Lal, Surendra Kumar,
Rohitashwa Kumar, Premsukhi, Abhishek Vishnoi, Rajeshwari
and Neeraj Kumar, is of reading the solved leaked paper on
Mobile before the examination and answered the questions.
The evidence collected during investigation so as to
substantiate the allegations against them are recovery of
certain documents which bears entries in regard to payment
of money in lieu of getting the solved paper. The said
documents in the manner they are written prima facie seem
to be suspicious.
The allegation against accused petitioner- Harkhu is
allowing one Indu @ Indubala @ Induprabha after being
managed through one Narpat Lal, who is husband of Indu, for
appearing as a dummy candidate in her place in the written
examination. The evidence so as to substantiate the
allegation against the accused petitioner collected during
investigation is that her handwriting does not match with her
signatures and remarks which are on her original attendance
sheet.
The allegation against accused petitioner- Chetan
Singh Meena is also allowing one Suresh Vishnoi after being
managed through one Hanuman Meena for appearing as a
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (65 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
dummy candidate in his place in the written examination and
the report of the handwriting expert is the evidence so as to
substantiate the allegations against him which shows that the
signatures of the accused petitioner do not match with the
alleged signatures on the original attendance sheet.
The allegation against accused petitioner- Praveen
Kumar is that after taking snap-shots of the question paper it
was sent to him and he solved it. As per the status report
submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, no other
criminal case is said to be pending against him. There is
nothing placed on record that the accused petitioner
circulated the said paper to any candidate even to his wife
who was a candidate.
As regards the accused petitioner- Bhagwati
Vishnoi, the allegation against her is that she allowed Varsha
as a dummy candidate to appear in the written examination
for the post of Sub Inspector in her place and the signatures
and the photographs of Bhagwati Vishnoi do not match with
the candidate whose photo is affixed on the original
attendance sheet with signatures.
As far as the allegations against accused petitioner-
Hanuman Prasad are concerned, he is said to have been
making arrangements of dummy candidates to appear in the
written examination in place of the original candidates. One
of the instances of arranging Suresh Vishnoi as a dummy
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (66 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
candidate to appear in place of Chetan Singh Meena (one of
the accused petitioner). It has also come on record that
seven other criminal cases are pending against him.
56. The offences under the Rajasthan Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 have
been described in sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are quoted
as under:-
“3. Prohibition of use of unfairmeans.–No
person shall use unfairmeans at any public
examination.
4. Unauthorised possession or disclosure of
question paper.-No person who is not lawfully
authorised or permitted by virtue of his duties so to
do shall, before the time fixed for distribution of
question papers to examinees at a public
examination–
(a) procure or attempt to procure or possess, such
question paper or any portion or copy thereof; or
(b) impart or offer to impart, information which he
knows or has reason to believe to be related to, or
derived from or to have a bearing upon such
question paper.
5. Prevention of leakage by person entrusted
with examination work.– No person who is
entrusted with any work pertaining to public
examination shall, except where he is permitted by
virtue of his duties so to do, directly, or indirectly
divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to
any other person any information or part thereof
which has come to his knowledge by virtue of the
work being so entrusted to him.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (67 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
6. Penalty.–Whoever contravenes or attempts to
contravene or abets the contravention of the
provisions of section 3 or section 4 or section 5, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine which may extend
to two thousand rupees or with both.
7. Penalty for offence with preparation to cause
hurt.– Whoever commits an offence punishable
under section 6 having made preparation for, causing
death of any person or causing hurt to any person or
assaulting any person or for wrongfully restraining
any person or for wrongful restraint shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine
which may extend to five thousand rupees.”
57. The definition of ‘Unfair means’ has been given in
sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 1992, which is
quoted as under:-
“(c) “unfair means’ in relation to an examination
while answering question in a public examination,
means the unauthorised help from any person, or
from any material written, recorded or printed, in
any form whatsoever or the use of any
unauthorised telephonic, wireless or electronic or
other instrument or gadget; and”
58. For consideration of bail to the accused in view of
the facts and allegations as stated in the above paras, the
Court is also conscious of the fact that because of leakage of
paper, the whole recruitment process has come under clouds.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (68 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
The credibility of the recruitment agency has also been
doubted and the whole recruitment process has been much
adversely affected which is resulting into adverse effect on
the administration. The allegations are of such a nature which
put impact on the whole society. However, in the back-ground
of the allegations and the evidence collected by the
Investigating Agency, the criminal intention of the accused
petitioners is more material. The intention of certain accused
persons in leakage of paper, arranging dummy candidates,
appeared as dummy candidates, may be to gain finance for
themselves without keeping in mind the overall effect over
the recruitment process. The intention of some of the accused
petitioners who are the candidates and appeared in the
written examination after going through the solved paper on
the mobile for a period of about one hour, may be to get
some help in answering the question, if allegations against
them are found to be proved.
59. It would not be appropriate at this stage to make
appreciation in regard to the allegations against the accused
petitioners, the submissions made on their behalf and the
evidence collected during investigation because that may
affect the trial against these persons and so also the
investigation going on in the matter. The Court is also
conscious of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
various cases that ‘the bail is rule and jail is exception’ and
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (69 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
same has also been referred by the counsels appearing for
the accused by citing judgments, referred to above.
60. Having considered the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the gravity of the allegations, the
degree and intention of the accused petitioners, in
committing the alleged crime and the observations made in
various judgments cited before this Court and as referred
above and the maximum sentence provided under law for the
allegations/ offences by each petitioner and the period they
are already remained in custody, the Court passes following
order:-
(i) The bail applications filed by the accused petitioner
namely; (1) Girdhariram s/o Birbal Ram (Bail Application
No.5409/2024), (2) Jagdish Siyag s/o Shree Bhagwanaram
(Bail Application No. 6387/2024), (3) Harkhu d/o Jogaram
(Bail Application No.7819/2024), (4) Chetan Singh Meena
s/o Shravan Lal Meena (Bail Application No.8281/2024), (5)
Dinesh Singh Chouhan s/o Dhanpat Singh Chouhan (Bail
Application No.8748/2024), (6) Rajaram @ Raju Matrix s/o
Ramrakh (Bail Application No. 8749/2024), (7) Ankita Godara
d/o Shri Shyam Sundar Vishnoi (Bail Application No.
8750/2024), (8) Bhagwati Vishnoi w/o Vinay Vishnoi d/o
Veeraram (Bail Application No.11837/2024), and (9)
Hanuman Prasad s/o Gyarsilal (Bail Application
No.12558/2024) are dismissed at this stage.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (70 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
(ii) The bail applications of accused petitioners namely;
(1) Karanpal Godara s/o Omprakash Godara (Bail Application
No. 6717/2024), (2) Ekta d/o Mohan Singh (Bail Application
No.6728/2024), (3) Manohar Lal s/o Shri Kishnaram (Bail
Application No.7340/2024), (4) Surendra Kumar s/o
Mohanram (Bail Application No.7351/2024), (5) Rohitashwa
Kumar s/o Shri Shishupal Jaat (Bail Application
No.7364/2024), (6) Premsukhi w/o Shri Rajkumar d/o Shri
Ramswaroop (Bail Application No.9183/2024), (7) Abhishek
Vishnoi s/o Shri Dalpatsingh Vishnoi (Bail Application
No.9710/2024), (8) Rajeshwari d/o Babulal (Bail Application
No.11330/2024), (9) Neeraj Kumar s/o Kawar Singh Yadav
(Bail Application No.13393/2024), and (10) Praveen Kumar
s/o Shri Mohan Lal Vishnoi (Bail Application No.11531/2024)
are allowed and it is ordered that the above-named accused
petitioners in connection with FIR No. 0010/2024 dated
03.03.2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station
(SOG), District ATS & SOG, shall be released on bail provided
each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) with two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Judge for their appearance before the Court
concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (71 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
61. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in
other connected bail applications.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
NK Sharma/Dy. Registrar
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:44 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)