[2025:RJ-JP:20497] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 6348/2025 Ashok Kumar Vishnoi S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dig Gav, Tehsil Naniwada, Post Karda, Police Station Karda, District Jalore (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 15/05/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.381/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer for offence(s) under Sections 419, 420 & 120B IPC and Section 3/10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that after rejection of first bail application of petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2024, there is change in circumstances as two other accused, involved in the present FIR namely Arjun Kumar Vishnoi and Heeraram have been enlarged on bail by this Court; Secondly, the statements of Investigation Officer and complainant Mohan Lal Yadav have been recorded and thereafter there is no progress in the criminal trial; [2025:RJ-JP:20497] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6348/2025] petitioner is languishing in jail since 03.01.2024, hence, in such circumstances, petitioner may also be given benefit of bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that petitioner is main accused in the present scam and since petitioner being Lecturer, impersonated himself to be a student appeared as a dummy candidate in place of Lakharam in the examination of Lecturer School Education Competitive Examination 2022 on 17.10.2022 and got cleared the examination for Lakharam. Hence, considering the role of petitioner, the case of petitioner is entirely distinguishable from other co-accused Arjun Kumar Vishnoi and Heeraram, hence, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. Having adverted to the rival submissions of both parties, this Court finds that Arjun Kumar Vishnoi and Heeraram were alleged to be mediators between candidate Lakharam and the main accused- present petitioner and considering their role and period of custody, they were enlarged on bail, but as far as petitioner is concerned, allegation against him is that he impersonated himself to be the candidate Lakharam and appeared in the examination in his place for unlawful gains. Thus, apparently, the case of petitioner is distinguishable from the case of other two accused Arjun Kumar Vishnoi and Heeraram and principle of parity does not apply in favour of petitioner. 5. As far as non-progress of criminal trial is concerned, indisputably, charge-sheet has been filed and two witnesses of prosecution including the Investigation Officer and complainant have been examined, trial is in progress, however, keeping in view [2025:RJ-JP:20497] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6348/2025] the right of speedy trial of petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is hereby directed that the trial Court shall expedite the trial of present criminal case as early as possible. 6. Thus, with aforesaid observations, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, hence, instant second bail application is hereby dismissed. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith for compliance. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /1