[2025:RJ-JD:1851] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 139/2025 Sumitra Kumari D/o Kalseng, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Lohariya Bada,at Present At Her Husband Mangal Singhpanda S/o Late Shri Kalu Pamda, R/o Jhalkiya, Gram Panchayat Andeshwar, P.s. Kushalgarh, Dist Banswara,raj (At Present Lodged In Dist Jail Banswara) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13353/2024 Sunil Kumar S/o Bhakhra Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 37 Years, R/ o Kukawas P.s.bagoda Dist., Sanchore (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary Mr. Devendra Sanwalot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 10/01/2025 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.236/2024 registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, Dist. Banswara, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of [2025:RJ-JD:1851] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-139/2025] IT Act and Sections 3, 4, 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of unfair means) Act, 1992. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, one Sakan Singh Khadia underwent the Senior Teacher Grade II Examination, 2018 as dummy candidate in place of the petitioner Sumitra Devi and cleared the same. The petitioner Sumitra Devi thereafter joined the services on the post of Senior Teacher (Grade II). Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, later on it revealed that there was large scale of malpractices in writing the said examination. The role attributed to the petitioner- Sunil Kumar is that he was agent/ middle man who had arranged proxy/ dummy candidate Namely Sakan Singh Khadia who allegedly appeared in the examination in place of the petitioner Sumitra Kumari. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no direct/ circumstantial evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the investigation against them has already been concluded and the trial against the petitioners is likely to consume sufficiently long time to conclude. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. [2025:RJ-JD:1851] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-139/2025] Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this court prima facie finds that the investigation against the petitioners has already been concluded. The prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioners influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case they are enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserves to be accepted. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Sumitra Kumari D/o Kalseng and (2) Sunil Kumar S/o Bhakhra Ram Vishnoi arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.236/2024 registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, Dist. Banswara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same. A copy of this order be placed in each file. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J 102-103 divya/-