[2025:RJ-JP:26893] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 16482/2024 Harkhu D/o Jogaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kairnada, Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer. Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv., assisted by, Mr. Veerendra Singh & Ms. Jaya Mitra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, SPP alongwith Ms. Shreya Hatila HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 18/07/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 10/2024 registered at Police Station SOG District ATS & SOG (Raj.) for offences under Section 419, 420 & 120B IPC & Section 4, 5 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66D of IT (Amended) Act, 2008. 2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Madhav Mitra assisted by Mr. Veerendra Singh, appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2024. He further submits that the allegation against the accused petitioner is of allowing some other candidate to appear as a dummy [2025:RJ-JP:26893] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16482/2024] candidate in her place in the recruitment examination for the post of Sub-inspector. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that persons with similar allegation namely Manju Vishnoi and Bhagwati Vishnoi have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 01.07.2025 & 01.04.2025 respectively by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel also submits that the accused petitioner was initially recruited under the Indian Railways and thereafter she was also recruited to the post of ANM under the State Government. He further submits that there is no incriminating evidence to lead the conviction of the accused petitioner and the trial of the case will take long time and therefore she may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Anurag Sharma opposed the bail application and submits that the criminal act of the accused petitioner is a devastating effect on the recruitment process in the society and such accused does not deserve the benefit of bail. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the charge-sheet as well as the other material placed before this Court. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan; SLP (Crl.) No. 7780/2025, vide para 4, has observed as follows:- "4. Having regard to the following : that the appelant is a lady; she has suffered pending trial incarceration since 03.04.2024; charge sheet has been submitted; there are multiple accused; and the trial is not likely to [2025:RJ-JP:26893] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16482/2024] conclude in near future, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan; SLP (Crl.) No. 3307/2025, vide para 6, has observed as follows:- "6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case while bearing in mind that the appellant is a lady who has a child aged one and a half years, to take care and she has already been in Jail for a period of over one year in a Magistrate triable offence, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of proviso to sub-section 1 of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. We therefore, allow the appeal. The order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside." 9. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the case of the accused petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the co-accused namely Manju Vishnoi and Bhagwati Vishnoi, who have been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the accused petitioner and to maintain the parity and also the fact that the accused petitioner is a woman and provisions of Section 480 also provide special treatment to the woman, this Court, without making any comments on the merit/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. 11. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of [2025:RJ-JP:26893] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16482/2024] the Trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /4