[2025:RJ-JP:27799] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 8867/2025 Hanuman Prasad S/o Gyarsilal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bilota, P.S. Aligarh, Distt. Tonk, (Raj.) (At Present Confined In J.C. Distt Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 24/07/2025 1. The instant 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.164/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Tonk, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 and Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 4. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is of arranging the dummy candidates for appearing in the recruitment examinations in place of the original candidates and is making money. [2025:RJ-JP:27799] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8867/2025] 5. Against the accused-petitioner six other criminal cases including three of similar nature are pending. In one of the criminal case, the accused-petitioner moved an application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.1428/2025 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2025. While dismissing the bail application of the present accused-petitioner, in one of the criminal case of similar nature, this Court observed that in case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh Etc.; SLP (Crl.) Nos.16156-16157/2024), decided on 07.03.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has cancelled the bail granted by the High Court and observed as under:- "Considerations for setting aside bail orders 28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 8.4 A recent judgment of this Court in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P from the pen of Vikram Nath [2025:RJ-JP:27799] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8867/2025] J., referred to the above paragraphs of Ajwar (supra) in cancelling the bail granted to certain accused persons in connection with alleged offences under Sections 498A, 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 9. Keeping in view the above pronouncements of law, we are of the view that the Trial Court had been correct in denying bail to the respondents herein. Considerations by the High Court of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but the Court while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society. 10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process - with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive. 11. Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent - accused have indeed not committed any crime in law. 12. We are conscious of the fact that bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily, and we wholeheartedly endorse this view. The view taken hereinabove, [2025:RJ-JP:27799] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8867/2025] however, has been taken keeping in view the overall impact of the alleged acts of the respondent-accused and its effect on society." 6. The details of several other cases which are pending against the present accused-petitioner are follows as under:- Sr. No. Case No. Under Sections Charge-sheet Police Station 1. 40/46 13.01.16 365, 392 IPC 383/16 30.0916 Sanganer Jaipur 2. 42/17 17.04.17 341, 323/34 IPC 41/17 26.04.17 Aligarh Tonk 3. 445/18 01.08.18 341, 323 IPC 286/18 21.12.18 Bajaj Nagar 4. 125/21 30.10.21 419, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & 3/4 Examination Act 129/21 24.12.21 Kotwali Kota 5. 348/21 23.10.21 419, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & 3/4, 6 Examination Act 272/21 10.12.21 R K Puram Kota 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indraj Singh (supra) and the pendency of six other criminal case including three of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /165