HANUMAN PRASAD S/O GYARSILAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/16138/2024 · 2025-01-13
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35052 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35052 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:1852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13529/2024 Hastimal Meena S/o Jagan Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Bilota, Police Station Aligarh, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.), At Present Posted As Mts Karmchari Aayur Yoga Preventive Cardiology Vibhag, Rashtriya Ayurveda Sansthan, Jorawar Singh Gate, Amer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13976/2024 Roshan Kumar S/o Shyam Babu Prasad, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gram Baleitha, Post Nadol, Police Station Masodhi, District Patna, State Bihar, At Presently Residies Mts Karmchari Pustkalya Vibhag, National Ayurveda Institute, Jorawar Singh Gate, Jaipur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16138/2024 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. Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal Mr. Manish Kumar Dr. Mahesh Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:1852] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13529/2024] Ms. Harshita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Devendra, CI, SOG, Jaipur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/01/2025
1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.60/2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station(SOG), District ATS & SOG (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Use of Unfair Means), Act 1992. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Section 3, 4 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Use of Unfair Means), Act 1992. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. Petitioner are in custody since their date of arrest and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3.
Investigating officer of this case is present in person and under his instruction, learned State Counsel submits that allegations against the petitioners are very grave in nature. He submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet that in the year
[2025:RJ-JP:1852] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13529/2024] 2021, an examination was conducted for the post of MTS and in that examination, dummy candidates appeared on behalf of petitioners Hastimal Meena & Roshan Kumar and petitioner Hanuman Prasad arranged the dummy candidates. He submits that entire examination system had been ruined by such persons and such type of offences are soaring in the society. He further submits that not only dummy candidates appeared in the examination but they also got appointment and thus, the right and claim of the laborious and meritorious candidates have been snatched and taken away by such offenders. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of allegation as well as gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to allow these bail applications. 5. Accordingly, these bail applications stands dismissed. However, observations made herein are only decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /87-89