Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harkhu D/O Jogaram 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 i<k;k x;k rFkk iqu%
ijh{kk dsUnzksa rd fHktok;k x;kA bl ijh{kk ds nkSjku txnh'k fc'uksbZ
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (10 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
us tgka ekLVj OgkV~lvi xzqi ij lkWYoM iz'ui= Mkyus ds lkFk&lkFk
blh laxfBr xSxa ds ,d vkSj lnL; g"kZo/kZu eh.kk iq= Jh eqjkjhyky
eh.kk fuoklh lkyeiqj Fkkuk emok ftyk nkSlk ds eksckbZy Qksu ij
tfj;s OgkWV~lvi lkWYoMZ isij HkstkA g"kZo/kZu eh.kk us fnukad 14-09-
2021 dk lkWYoM iz'ui= vius lg;ksxh o bl xSxa ds lnL; v'kksd
flag ukFkkor dks tfj;s OgkV~lvi mlds eksckbZy Qksu ij HkstkA
fnukad 14-09-2021 dks v'kksd flag ukFkkor o ,d vU; xSax lnL;
jktsUnz ;kno mQZ jktw iq= Jh rstiky tkfr ;kno fuoklh VkMkokl
Fkkuk dkykMsjk ftyk t;iqj xzkeh.k] g"kZo/kZu ds funsZ'kkuqlkj mn;iqj
igwapAs v'kksd flag ukFkkor o jktsUnz ;kno mQZ jktw us mn;iqj esa
g"kZo/kZu ds crk;s nks yM+dksa dks fnukad 14-09-2021 ds nksuksa lkWYoM
isilZ dks i<+k;kA g"kZo/kZu us vius lg;ksxh o bl xSxa ds ,d vU;
lnL; fjadw 'kekZ fuoklh nkSlk ds eksckbZy Qksu ij vius eksckbZy Qksu
ls ;gh lkWYoM isij Hkstk] ftlesa dbZ ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks isij i<+ok;kA
blh rjg Lo;a g"kZo/kZu us Hkh dbZ lkbZV gS.MylZ ds ek/;e ls isij
ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks i<ok;kA fjadw 'kekZ o Lo:i eh.kk fuoklh Vhdjh ftyk
nkSlk }kjk dbZ vH;kFkhZ isij i<us gsrq g"kZo/kZu dks miyC/k djok;s
x;sA fnukad 05-09-2021 dks v'kksd flag ukFkkor o jktsUnz ;kno mQZ
jktw dks mi fujh{kd ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksuk FkkA bu nksuksa dk ijh{kk
dsUnz mn;iqj FkkA g"kZo/kZu }kjk txnh'k fc'uksbZ o ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ
iadt pkS/kjh ls bl lEcU/k esa ckr dh xbZ vkSj txnh'k fc'uksbZ o
;wuhd HkkEcq ds lkbZV gS.MylZ }kjk bu nksuksa dks mn;iqj ds ,d
gksVy esa ys tkdj dejs esa nksuksa ikfj;ksa ds lkWYoM isilZ eksckbZy Qksu
ij i<+k;s x;sA bu nksuksa ds lkFk rhu vH;kFkhZ vkSj Fks ftUgksua s Hkh mDr
isij eksckbZy Qksu ij i<kA bu rhu vH;kfFkZ;ksa esa ls ,d vH;kFkhZ
yM+dh ftldk uke izes lq[kh fuoklh chdkusj Fkh rFkk nks vU; vH;kFkhZ
FksA bu ikap esa ls rhu vH;kFkhZ v'kksd flag ukFkkor] jktsUnz ;kno mQZ
jktw rFkk izes lq[kh mi fujh{kd in ij vfUre :i ls p;fur gks x;sA
v'kksd flag ukFkkor o jktsUnz ;kno mQZ jktw us vHkh rd mi fujh{kd
in ij tkWbZfuax ugha nh gSA izes lq[kh orZeku esa jktLFkku iqfyl
vdkneh] t;iqj esa ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr dj jgh gSA txnh'k
fc'uksbZ] ;wuhd HkkEcq mQZ iadt pkS/kjh o f'kojru eksV }kjk fu;ksftr
lkbZV gS.MylZ }kjk lkWYoM isilZ dks jktLFkku ds fofHkUu Hkkxksa esa
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (11 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
dkQh ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ls /kujkf'k ysdj mUgsa i<+k;k x;kA buds }kjk i<+k;s
x;s fuEu vH;kFkhZ jktLFkku iqfyl vdkneh esa ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr
dj jgs gSa&01- ujs'k fc'uksbZ fuoklh ekykokM+k ftyk lkapkSj] 02- ukjaxh
dqekjh fc'uksbZ fuoklh Mwaxjiqj ftyk lkapkSj] 03- jkts'ojh fuoklh
fcjkck ftyk lkapkSj] 04- xksihjke tkaxw fuoklh fl;kxksa dh csjh ckM+ejs ]
05- Jo.k dqekj fc'uksbZ fuoklh jk.klj [kqnZ] xqMkekykuh] ckM+ejs 06-
euksgj fc'uksbZ fuoklh Qkxfy;k] ckM+esj 07- lqjsUnz fc'uksbZ fuoklh
nkrk] lkapkSj] 08- dj.kiky xksnkjk] 09- foosd HkkEcq] 10- ,drk dqekjh]
11- jksfgrk'k dqekj fuoklh HkwMk dk ckl] eylhlj] >qU>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 <kdk fuoklh lkapkSj o
dbZ vU; yksxksa us dkQh le; rd lkFk&lkFk isij yhd djus dk
dk;Z fd;k gSA dkykUrj esa HkwisUnz lkj.k o lqjs'k <kdk us i`Fkd xSxa
rS;kj dj isij yhd djus dk dk;Z fujarj tkjh j[kkA blh rjg vfuy
dqekj eh.kk mQZ 'ksjflag eh.kk us Hkh vyx gksdj bl dk;Z dks tkjh
j[kkA rhuksa gh xSxa vius&vius Lrj ij ijh{kkvksa ds isij yhd djus
dk dk;Z djus yx x;hA ijUrq dksbZ xSxa fdlh ijh{kk dk isij yhd
ugha dj ikus dh fLFkfr esa nwljh xSxa ds fdlh lnL; dks fo'okl esa
ysdj pksjh fNis yhd gq;s isij dks muls gkfly dj ysrh FkhA bl
izdkj lHkh xSxa fdlh u fdlh rjg vkil esa vkarfjd :i ls tqMh+ gqbZ
FkhA txnh'k fc'uksbZ xSxa ds lnL; v'kksd flag ukFkkor ds ikl
fnukad 14-09-2021 ds lkWYoM isilZ g"kZo/kZu }kjk mlds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks
i<+kokus ds fy;s fHktok;s x;s Fks ijUrq v'kksd flag ukFkkor ls iUnzg
yk[k :i;s esa vfuy dqekj eh.kk mQZ 'ksjflag dks mDr lkWYoM isilZ
csp fn;sA vfuy dqekj eh.kk mQZ 'ksjflag eh.kk us Lo;a us rFkk vius
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (12 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
lkbZV gS.MylZ deys'k eh.kk fuoklh xksfoUnx<+ ftyk t;iqj] v:.k
'kekZ fuoklh Jhek/kksiqj ftyk lhdj ds ek/;e ls ntZuksa vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks
lkWYoM isilZ i<+ok;k x;kA blds lkFk&lkFk vfuy dqekj eh.kk mQZ
'ksjflag us ipkl yk[k :i;s esa HkwiUs nz lkj.k dks mDr lkWYoM isilZ
cspus dk lkSnk fd;k vkSj iPphl yk[k :i;s izkIr fd;s] QyLo:i
vfuy dqekj eh.kk mQZ 'ksjflag us mDr lkWYoM isilZ dks HkwiUs nz lkj.k
ds eksckbZy Qksu ij Hkst fn;kA HkwiUs nz lkj.k o lqj's k <kdk us vius
lkbZV gS.MylZ] 01- lqfuy fuoklh xTtsokyk dksyk;r ftyk chdkusj]
02- egsUnz fuoklh vkdksyh] lkapkSj] 03- lqfuy Hkknw fuoklh gsekxqMk+ ]
lkapkSj] 04- deys'k <kdk ¼lqjs'k <kdk dk HkkbZ½] 05- lqj's k lkgw fuoklh
gsekxksM+k] lkapkSj ¼lqjs'k <kdk dk thtk½ ] 05- fnus'k lkj.k fuoklh
fc<+k.kh] lkapkSj ¼lqjs'k <kdk ds ekek dk yM+dk½ vkfn ds ek/;e ls
fuEu vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks lkWYoM isilZ i<+k;s tks vfUre :i ls p;fur
gksdj jktLFkku iqfyl vdkneh esa ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr dj jgs gS&
a
01- vHk;flag fuoklh flokM+k] lkapkSj] 02- euksgj yky fuoklh fofo;ksa
dk xksyk Hkhueky] lkapkSj] 03- euksgjflag fuoklh lsfM;k] lkapkSj] 04-
Hkxorh fc'uksbZ fuoklh lkapkSjA blds vfrfjDr bl xSxa ls ykHkkfUor
gq, ntZuksa vH;kFkhZ vfUre :i ls p;fur gksdj ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr
dj jgs gSaA HkwisUnz lkj.k o lqj's k <kdk }kjk i<+k;s x;s vH;kFkhZ izoh.k
fc'uksbZ iq= dqynhi fc'uksbZ fuoklh Mkoy] lkapkSj us vfUre :i ls
p;fur gksus ds ckotwn mi fujh{kd in ij tkWbZu ugha fd;k gSA lkFk
gh lairyky fc'uksbZ fuoklh djkoyh lkapkSj o mlds ,d lkFkh dks Hkh
lkWYoM isilZ i<+k;s x;s FksA bl izdkj txnh'k fc'uksbZ o ;wuhd HkkEcq
mQZ iadt pkS/kjh] f'kojru eksV] jkts'k [k.Msyoky] g"kZo/kZu] v'kksd
flag ukFkkor] jktsUnz ;kno mQZ jktw] fjadw 'kekZ] Lo:i eh.kk }kjk
vkijkf/kd "kM;a= ds rgr mijksDr lkbZV gS.MylZ ds ek/;e ls
mijksDr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks mi fujh{kd HkrhZ dk lkWYoM isilZ fnukad 14-
09-2021 o 15-09-2021 dk /kujkf'k ysdj i<+ok;k x;kA ftlds
QyLo:i mDr ijh{kkFkhZ mi fujh{kd HkrhZ ijh{kk esa lQy gq;s rFkk
ijh{kk esa lkWYoM isilZ ls enn yhA blh rjg vfuy dqekj eh.kk mQZ
'ksjflag eh.kk us mijksDr lkbZV gS.MylZ dh enn ls ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks
lkWYoM isilZ /kujkf'k ysdj i<k;sA HkwisUnz lkj.k o lqj's k <kdk us mDr
vH;kfFkZ;ksa ls /kujkf'k ysdj mUgsa lkWYoM isilZ i<++k;k ftlds QyLo:i
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (13 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
os p;fur gksus esa lQy gq;sA bl izdkj mDr vH;kfFkZ;ksa us mi
fujh{kd ijh{kk esa lQy gksus esa vuqfpr lk/kuksa dh enn yh gS blds
vfrfjDr jktLFkku iqfyl vdkneh] t;iqj esa ewyHkwr izf'k{k.k izkIr dj
jgs mi fujh{kdx.kksa esa ls ntZuksa mi Cheating by
impersonation ls lQy gksus dh tkudkjh lkeus vk;h gSA
isiy yhd djus okys mijksDr laxfBr fxjksg }kjk mi fujh{kd HkrhZ
ijh{kk 2021 esa vuqfpr lk/kuksa o lkexzh dk bLrseky dj v;ksX;
vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh fu;e fo:) lgk;rk dj mUgsa lnks"k ykHk igqp
a k;k gS]
ftlds QyLo:i v;ksX; vH;kFkhZ lQy gksus esa dke;kc gq;s rFkk
;ksX; vH;kFkhZ lQy gksus ls oafpr fd;s x;sA bl izdkj ;ksX;
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lnks"k gkfu igqp
a kbZ x;hA isij yhd fxjksg ds lnL;ksa us
mDr laxfBr vijk/k dkfjr dj djksMk+ sa :i;s dk lnks"k ykHk izkIr
fd;k gS] vr% fjiksVZ is'k dj fuosnu gS fd nksf"k;ksa ds fo:) izFke
lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ dj vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq vuqjks/k gSA "
Accused-Girdhariram (Bail Appl. No.5409/2024):-
3. Mr. Deepak Chauan, counsel appearing for the
accused petitioner submitted that as per the charge-sheet
filed against the accused petitioner, the allegation against him
is that in the competitive examination for the post of Sub
Inspector held in the year 2021, he appeared as a dummy
candidate in place of one Vikramjeet in exchange of
RS.10,00,000/- and before appearing in the examination he
is said to have stayed with Vikramjeet at Jain Dharamshala,
Udaipur.
Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 18.04.2024, though he has not been named in
the FIR. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner is
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (14 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
working on the post of Teacher at Government Upper Primary
School, Nehdai, Panchayat Samiti Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer and on the alleged date i.e. on 13.09.2024 he was
on duty at the place of posting as is evident from the
attendance register. He further submitted that the candidate
Vikramjeet himself appeared in the written examination,
which is proved from the photograph affixed on the admit
card at the time of submitting the application form and the
another photograph during the examination and both are
same.
Counsel further submitted that the Manager of Jain
Dharamshala, Udaipur, in his statement has not asserted that
the accused petitioner stayed there with Vikramjeet and the
guest register also does not disclose the fact that the accused
petitioner stayed there. Counsel also submitted that there is
no evidence on record so as to connect the accused petitioner
with the alleged offences. Connsel further submitted that as
per the instructions issued in regard to the written
examination for the post of Sub Inspector, the videography
was to be done as regards the candidates who appeared in
the written examination. He further submitted that the
Investigating Agency has not submitted any videography so
as to prove the allegations against the accused petitioner.
Counsel also submitted that the report of the hand writing
expert which is being used as an evidence against the
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:42:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46467] (15 of 71) [CRLMB-5409/2024]
petitioner, is not a scientific evidence but it is only the
evidence for corroboration of the allegations. Counsel also
submitted that the offences alleged to be committed by the
petitioner are triable by Magistrate and no offences under
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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 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 12:42:41 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)