[2025:RJ-JP:34832] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15968/2024 Deepak Kumar Meena S/o Hemraj Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Indaawa, Tehsil Lalsot, P.s. Lalsot, District Dausa (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. 15969/2024 Mahesh Kumar Meena S/o Tikaram Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Phoolwada Gangapur Tehsil Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur (Presently, Clerk-Grade Secon/junior Assistant Office Of Commercial Taxes Department, Circle Dausa). Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15970/2024 Roshan Lal Meena S/o Shri Narayan Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Maanpuriya Kothya, P.s. Nangal Rajwatan, District Dausa (Presently Third Grade Teacher, Mahatma Gandhi Government School Pyarivaas, Dausa). (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan with Mr. Harsh Joshi & Mr. Ashok Choudhary Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav & Ms. Arti Sharma, PP [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] Mr. Haripal Singh, CI, SOG, Jaipur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/08/2025 1. These three bail applications were preferred by applicants- accused Roshanlal Meena S/o Narayan Meena, Deepak Kumar Meena S/o Hemraj Meena and Mahesh Kumar Meena S/o Teekaram Meena in a matter arising out of FIR No. 32/2024 dated 24.05.2024 lodged at P.S. Special Police Station (SOG) District ATS and SOG, Jaipur under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and 3, 4, 6 of Rajasthan Public Exam (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. 2. Learned counsels for the parties submits that applicant- accused Manish is a candidate who applied for the recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police Joint Competitive Examination, 2016 but as per SOG, instead of appearing himself as a candaidate, accused Roshan Lal has been engaged to appear as a dummy candidate on behalf of Manish in said Examination. They further submit that Mahesh Kumar and Deepak have no concern with Roshan but allegations are made against them that they conspired other accused to facilitate Roshan Lal in appearing as a dummy candidate in the said Examination. They further submits that after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against and looking to the list of witnesses and documents submitted by Investigating Agency, it is not likelihood that the trial will complete within statutory time as prescribed under the law. [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] 3. Learned counsels for the applicants further referred the provision of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 1992”) and submits that the maximum punishment is 3 years and the offences are triable by Magistrate. They further submit that the evidence on record is insufficient even to frame charge against any of the applicant. They further submits that the examination was held on 07.10.2018 and FIR is registered only in 2024 without explaining the reasons of delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Deepak and Mahesh submits that Deepak and Mahesh are uncle and nephew (Mama- Bhanja) and they are closely related with each other. He further submits that it is not possible for them to indulge in financial transactions and to conspire with any third party to engage and facilitate a dummy candidate. He further submits that both of the them were granted bail in two cases. He further referred money transaction and submitted that same cannot be connected with the exam held on 07.10.2018 as the time lapse is not matching with the schedule of exam conducted by RPSC. He further submits that further money transaction is reported by SOG and that too of in cheque (not encashed), indicate that after several years of the examination a candidate or a person allegedly associated with the exam has not received money for work completed on 07.10.2018. He further submits that these money transactions are not sufficient evidence to show link between the applicants. At last, he submits that Deepak and Mahesh are in custody since 07.11.2024, and trial has not begin so far. [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Roshan submits that he is an innocent person and there is no evidence to show his involvement as a dummy candidate. He further submits that nowhere it is established that applicant-accused is involved in identical nature of offences, and applicant is in custody since 06.09.2024. 6. Learned counsel for applicants submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on ground of length of custody.They further referred Girdhariram Vs. State of Rajasthan SLP (Criminal) No. 7461/2025 (Order dated 23.06.2025) passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and order in case of bail application No. 15988-89 of 2024 and order dated 08.08.2025 in bail application No. 191/2025 & 192/2025. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and submits that these applicants are involved in other cases and having a criminal background. 8. Heard learned counsels for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. Also considered the report submitted by SOG. 9. The facts of the case clearly indicate that during investigation, in FIR No. 11/2024 dated 01.04.2024 applicant- accused Roshan Lal has disclosed that he has appeared as a dummy candidate on behalf of Manish in Sub-Inspector of Police Joint Competitive Examination, 2016 organized by RPSC, Ajmer. On basis of this information, SOG has investigated the matter and registered an FIR No. 32/2024 on 24.05.2024 and after [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] investigation filed a charge-sheet against Roshan Lal, Deepak and Mahesh but kept pending against Manish Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and others under Sections 173(8) of Cr.P.C.. The applicant- accused Roshan Lal is arrested on 06.09.2024. Accused Deepak and Mahesh were arrested on 07.11.2024. Since, then applicants- accused are in custody. 10. Herein, this case as per record 6 identical nature of cases were registered against Roshan Lal and we have dismissed the bail application of Roshan lal in FIR No. 21/2024 P.S. SOG on 08.08.2025. As per list submitted by SOG, 6 cases were registered against Deepak Kumar. When we connect then it appears that Roshan Lal and Deepak Kumar were involved in same FIR. This fact is brought on record that Roshan Lal is working as Grade-III Teacher in Mahatama Gandhi Government School Pyariwas, District Dausa. 11. In case of Girdhariram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused, who was in custody since 18.04.2024 and only on ground of length of custody allowed the bail. The investigation conducted by SOG indicate that candidate was Manish has not appeared in the examination of recruitment for year 2016 actually conducted on 07.10.2018. According to SOG, Manish Kumar Meena has issued two cheques from his SBI account each of which is having domination of ₹5 lacs but these cheques were not encashed by Roshan Lal and same were found in possession of Roshan Lal. The material also indicate that there is transaction in the bank account [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] of Roshan Lal from Dinesh Kumar, Mahesh and Manish Kumar and SOG has linked these transactions with the deal struck between Roshan Lal & Manish Kumar. The accused Deepak Kumar and Mahesh Kumar were charged as conspirator and abettor of the offence. 12. The conclusion drawn by SOG also reflect that call details prior to 2022 were not made available by service provider as call details beyond two years are not preserved by service provider and they are not legally bound to supply said CDR to Investigating Agency. The material on record is only a disclosure statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act and at the stage of bail we can only say that a disclosure statement under Section 27 is admissible only when such information leads to discovery of a material fact previously unknown to the Investigating Agency. It is also relevant to mention that only information provided by accused leading to discovery of a new fact is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act but the act committed by accused is not admissible, if it is a part of disclosure statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act (corresponding Section 23 of BSA). 13. The conclusion drawn by SOG indicate that Manish Meena is finally selected as Sub-Inspector and presently he is working in CID (BI Nachna, Jaisalmer) as a Sub-Inspector. No FSL report is available on record as RPSC has informed vide letter dated 17.05.2024 that original OMR sheet and attendance sheet of Manish Kumar are weeded out. [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] 14. In case of Girdhariram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and also in bail application No. 15988-89 of 2024, 191/2025 and 192/2025 bail has been granted to applicant-accused where they were charged in identical nature of cases. The material on record indicate that Deepak, Roshan Lal and Mahesh were involved in same 6 cases and admittedly Deepak, and Mahesh they are neither candidate nor dummy in said examination organised by RPSC for recruitment of Sub-Inspector in the year 2016 (actually exam conducted on 07.10.2018). 15. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that Roshan Lal is the main accused in the instant case and Manish Kumar was a candidate but he is not arrested so far by SOG. Roshan lal is a teacher and allegation upon him is to appear for financial gain. The applicant Roshan Lal is in custody since 06.09.2024 though, the applicant is in custody for more than 11 months but still there is six identical nature of cases and looking to criminal background and material available against him on record, I am of the view that it is not appropriate to grant bail to applicant-accused Roshan Lal but considering the role, involvement and evidence available on record, it is appropriate to grant bail to applicants-accused Mahesh Kumar and Deepak Kumar. 16. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant- accused Mahesh Kumar Meena S/o Tikaram Meena and Deepak Kumar Meena S/o Hemraj Meena is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused Mahesh Kumar Meena and Deepak [2025:RJ-JP:34832] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-15968/2024] Kumar Meena S/o Hemraj Meena is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicants-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicants-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 17. Thus, bail application Nos. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15970/2024 preferred by Roshan Lal Meena is hereby dismissed. 18. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /39-41