[2025:RJ-JP:35732] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9281/2025 Swaruparam S/o Shri Gomaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Berdon Ka Pana, Ramji Ki Gol Phata, Piprali, P.s. Gudhamalani, District Barmer, Present Time Working As Physical Teacher, Government Higher Primary School, Jakhado Ki Dhani, Bhimathal, Dhorimanna, District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/08/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Swaruparam S/o Shri Gomaram seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.81/2024 dated 22.11.2024 registered at P.S. Special Police Station (SOG) District – ATS and SOG, for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more [2025:RJ-JP:35732] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9281/2025] required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on basis of an information received on 22.11.2024 about non- appearance of petitioner accused in the exam and selection on basis of examination cleared through a dummy candidate, a report is registered after a delay. He further submits that after selection, the educational documents of the petitioner were verified and the Department has found that the degree and mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner-accused are duly issued by the educational institutions. He further submits that after registration of report, SOG has found that the petitioner has applied as candidate for recruitment for the post of PTI but he engaged dummy candidate Sunil Kumar to appear on his behalf in the examination. He further submits that FSL report is pending and there is no evidence on record. He further submits that the allegation upon the present petitioner is that he obtained degree after selection in back date but there is no proof on record to substantiate allegation. At last, he submits that the SOG has already filed a charge-sheet and trial will take time. He further referred judgment in case of C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : 2025 INSC 309 and submitted that the offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not made [2025:RJ-JP:35732] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9281/2025] out and report of FSL is just an opinion and not a conclusive proof. He further referred order dated 08.08.2025 in bail application No.614/2025 whereby this Court has granted bail to Laadu Ram on identical facts and circumstances. He further referred order dated 24.02.2025 in bail application No.2557/2025 in respect of Sunil Kumar passed by a Co- ordinate Bench and submitted that similarly placed accused was granted bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On basis of a complaint received on helpline of SOG about selection of Swaruparam in PTI Direct Recruitment Examination – 2022 without necessary qualification and appearance in written examination through a dummy candidate, the matter is investigated and afterwards a case is registered. During investigation, it was found that the present petitioner accused at the time of filing of application has mentioned that his result is awaited. The present petitioner has engaged Sunil Kumar for appearing as candidate on his behalf in the said examination. The material collected by SOG indicate that the present petitioner has not appeared in the examination rather Sunil Kumar has appeared as dummy candidate and ultimately the present [2025:RJ-JP:35732] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9281/2025] petitioner was selected. After selection, the petitioner has procured a degree of B.P.Ed. from Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences, Sihor, Madhya Pradesh and Graduation degree from Sabarmati University, Ahmadabad (Gujarat). SOG has found that the graduation degree and the degree of B.P.Ed. were obtained in back date from these universities. The report submitted by SOG has indicate that in FSL report, it has been opined that the hand writing of the petitioner accused is not matching with the hand writing available on OMR sheet and attendance sheet. The evidence collected by SOG indicate that the present petitioner has not appeared as candidate in the examination and further he procured false decree after selection. In case of Sunil Kumar (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench has granted bail to a person who was a selected candidate. In case of Laadu Ram (supra), a candidate was granted bail by this Court who was in custody since 26.11.2024 and allegation is to appear through dummy candidate. In case of C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that evidence of hand writing expert is only an expert opinion. The judgment in case of C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) can be considered at the time of final adjudication. 7. Here in this case, the present petitioner accused has not appeared as a candidate and he engaged a dummy candidate Sunil Kumar though he is part of any organised syndicate. The petitioner accused is arrested on 26.11.2024 but in the instant case, the petitioner accused is not having [2025:RJ-JP:35732] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9281/2025] any degree of both graduation and B.P.Ed. and both were procured after passing the written examination. Therefore, the case of the present petitioner is not similar as that of Laadu Ram (supra) and Sunil Kumar (supra). 8. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by the petitioner accused Swaruparam S/o Shri Gomaram is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/135