[2025:RJ-JP:46995] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14100/2025 Chetan Puri S/o Purma Puri, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Shyopura, P.s. Narena, District Jaipur, Presently Contractual Employee Data Entry Operator, Sub-District Hospital Dudu, District Jaipur. (Presently Accused applicant Is In Sub Jail, Phulera, Sambhar Lake). ----Petitioner/Accused Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order 20/11/2025 1. The applicant -accused before this Court is an under trial, being implicated in FIR No.301/2024 dated 03.12.2024 registered at Police Station, Dudu for the alleged offences under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2)(a) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). In the course of investigation, applicant was arrested on 13.10.2025 and is under incarceration ever since. 2. The earlier bail applications filed by the applicant were dismissed vide an order dated 15.10.2025 by the learned Magistrate followed by an order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the instant bail application. 3. The prosecution’s case is that on 03.12.2024, the complainant, Shri Sunil Kumar, reported at Police Station Dudu [2025:RJ-JP:46995] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14100/2025] alleging that one Shri Hem Singh, Journalist with Sach Bedhak, had informed him on 02.12.2024 about the issuance of fake Divyang (Disability) Certificates. Upon inquiry, suspicion was cast on the applicant herein, employed as a Data Operator at the Sub- District Hospital, Dudu, on the allegation that he had generated certain disability certificates without medical verification. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 301/2024 was lodged, and applicant / petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2025. 4. In this background, I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor, and examined the material on record. 5. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail and asserts that the learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge were justified in refusing bail to the petitioner, also asserting that the trial is at a nascent stage. 6. Conversely, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused forcefully contends that the applicant is innocent and has been wrongly implicated. It is emphatically argued that the applicant had no authority whatsoever to issue disability certificates. His duties were confined strictly to computer data entry and maintenance of the Divyang Portal, and that too under explicit instructions from superior officers. If at all, it were the medical officers concerned, not the applicant , were responsible for verification, certification, and constitution of the medical board. Thus, the allegation that the applicant “issued” fake certificates is inherently flawed and unsupported any structural administrative responsibility. [2025:RJ-JP:46995] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14100/2025] 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further highlights the inordinate and unexplained delay between the alleged incident (December 2024) and the petitioner’s arrest (October 2025). This delay, it is argued, clearly points to mala-fide intent and an afterthought on the part of the complainant and the investigating officer. It is asserted that the complainant, Dr. Sunil Kumar, lodged the FIR only after his transfer, with the ulterior motive of suppressing his own irregularities and to shield other officials involved, while conveniently shifting the blame onto a subordinate employee. 7.1. It is further pointed out that the applicant remained in service throughout and continued to receive full salary from the Chief Medical Officer up to October 2025. Same goes on to show that no disciplinary or administrative action was contemplated against him until his sudden arrest. No recovery has been made from him, and no incriminating material has been seized. His alleged confession, obtained under coercion, is inadmissible. The applicant is the sole breadwinner for his family; his prolonged incarceration will result in grave hardship. In any case, the trial is likely to take considerable time, and continued detention would serve no useful purpose. 8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and the material on record, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for grant of bail. Let us see how. 9. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations against the applicant are vague, general in nature, and devoid of any specific attribution of role. It is not the prosecution’s case that the applicant had any authority, capacity, or discretion to influence or [2025:RJ-JP:46995] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14100/2025] approve the issuance of disability certificates by the competent medical authorities. 10. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on documentary evidence already seized and in the custody of the investigating agency. There is no likelihood that the petitioner, a lower-rank Data Operator, can tamper with official records or influence senior medical officers. It transpires that the petitioner is thus no longer required for custodial interrogation. Hence, continued incarceration would be punitive rather than investigatory. 11. Moreover, the nature of allegations may be just be procedural lapses within a government office; these issues are to be adjudicated during trial without necessitating prolonged pre- trial detention. 12. The applicant has deep roots in society with no past criminal antecedents and thus there is no risk of absconding. 13. Taking the wholesome view of the matter, the present bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner-Cheten Puri S/o Parma Puri shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be with the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The petitioner-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity. [2025:RJ-JP:46995] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14100/2025] (iii) The petitioner-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 petitioner-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 14. Bail application is allowed, as above. 15. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ARUN MONGA),J Monika/121