[2025:RJ-JP:40069] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 11810/2025 Bharmal Ram S/o Naringa Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dhanta, Police Station Sanchor, District Sanchor, At Present Physical Teacher Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kunda, Raniwada, District Sanchor (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rajesh Kumar, IO, PS SOG present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/09/2025 1. The present 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Bharmal Ram S/o Naringa Ram seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.80/2024 dated 22.11.2024 registered at P.S. Special Police Station (SOG), District – ATS & SOG, for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6, 7 & 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) 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 required in investigation. He further submits that there are [2025:RJ-JP:40069] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-11810/2025] 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 trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 04.08.2025 and now the instant second bail application is filed after recording statement of two material witnesses. He further submits that this Hon’ble Court has granted bail to identical placed Laaduram on 08.08.2025 in FIR No.78/2024 registered at PS Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, who was also charged for same offence and was in custody since 26.11.2024. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon order dated 16.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.4101/2025 (Ram Khailadi Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan), Criminal Appeal No.4099/2025 (Bhagirath Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan) and Criminal Appeal No.4100/2025 (Aditya Upadhyay Vs. State of Rajasthan), who were granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court after dismissal of bail applications on 01.09.2025 by this Court. He also referred bail order dated 18.09.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in respect of Rawata Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan in FIR No.311/2024 registered at Police Station Ramnagaria, District Jaipur City (East) and submitted that there is no evidence on record to show any commercial involvement of present petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner accused is entitled to be [2025:RJ-JP:40069] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-11810/2025] released on bail on ground of period of custody as trial has not been concluded and the offence is triable by Magistrate. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. She has submitted that the present petitioner has procured a fake and false degree from Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences, Sehore (MP). She has also filed a report received from concerned Investigating Agency. 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 that present petitioner accused has not appeared in PTI Direct Recruitment Examination 2022 rather appeared through a dummy candidate, a case was registered and investigated by SOG. In application form, the petitioner accused has mentioned that BPED course was conducted from OPJS University, Churu whereas at the time of selection, mark-sheet of Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences, Sehore (MP) was submitted. After investigation, SOG has found that present petitioner has not appeared as a candidate in written examination rather he appeared through a dummy candidate and also procured fake degree to prove his qualification. 7. First bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 04.08.2025 after filing of charge-sheet. Two witnesses PW-1 Anita Goyal and PW-2 Mohammed Ali were examined by prosecution so far. Current case is registered [2025:RJ-JP:40069] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-11810/2025] under the Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 2022 whereas most of the case which were referred while considering the first bail application on 04.08.2025 relates to the Rajasthan Public Examination (User of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. In both the provisions not only the period of sentence has been changed but the forum of trial has also been changed. Now the current case is tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. The merits of the case were dealt by this Court while considering first bail application on 04.08.2025. Two witnesses were examined by prosecution and PW-1 is invigilator of room who had permitted entry to Bharmal Ram for examination after verification of documents. The prosecution has not exhibited any document during her examination-in-chief, which would give evidence about the admission card or the documents signed by her on 25.09.2022. It appears that the prosecution is not playing a proper role during examination of witnesses during trial and same is a matter of great concern where a charge-sheet is filed in case of like “Munna Bhai”. 9. The petitioner accused is in custody since 26.11.2024 and after filing of charge-sheet two witnesses were examined so far which indicate that the trial is progressing and we cannot presume that trial will be delayed due to long list of witnesses or pending cases before the trial Court. 10. Here in this case, the important issue is that the present petitioner-accused who filed an application as a candidate in the PTI Direct Recruitment Examination, 2022 and [2025:RJ-JP:40069] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-11810/2025] mentioned that he has conducted BPED course from OPJS University, Churu. At the time of written examination on 25.09.2022, the present petitioner has not appeared as a candidate rather a dummy candidate appeared as impersonator in place of the present petitioner. The dummy candidate has not been arrested and financial link has not been brought on record. After selection the present petitioner accused has submitted mark-sheet and degree obtained from Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences, Sehore (MP). It indicate that when application form was filled up, the qualifying examination was passed from OPJS University, Churu but after selection, the institute of qualifying examination has been changed. The SOG has submitted that in application form, the petitioner accused has mentioned that “Result Awaited/Appearing” but after selection he has submitted mark-sheet for year 2020-2022 procured for the course conducted prior to appearing in examination. It clearly indicate that contrary to the declaration filed in application form, the petitioner has submitted a degree / mark-sheet of an institute which was neither named by him in any document nor mentioned in application. It signifies two aspects firstly concealment of fact or procuring a degree after selection. Both are serious offences in case of selection on public post. 11. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances as the trial has already been begin and two witnesses were examined and current case is under the Act [2025:RJ-JP:40069] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-11810/2025] of 2022. The petitioner is committed offence related to dummy candidate (cheating by impersonation) and also procuring a degree of qualification from an institute, not disclosed in the application form. Thus, procuring a degree after selection from an institute neither named nor studied a student is a serious offence, therefore, the judgments as referred by learned counsel are not helpful in seeking bail in the instant matter. 12. During course of arguments, we have specifically asked the Investigating Officer who is working as Additional SP, SOG about action against Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences, Sehore (MP), and it has come to the notice of the Court that in 57 cases, SOG has found that said University is involved in issuance of degree / mark-sheet in back date and further the University officials are not co- operating in investigation to SOG. It indicate that either the University is more powerful than SOG or SOG wants to shun its eyes on the acts committed by a particular University. In both the cases, it is legal duty of the ADG of SOG to ensure that the majesty of law is uphold at all cost and whosoever he may be, no one is above the law. If The Additional DG of SOG failed to take action or prevents his Officers from taking any action against erring University then he would be held personally liable for assisting and aiding a co-accused named in 57 criminal cases by SOG itself. Needless to say that after investigation, if SOG finds that the University has not committed any offence then obviously the charge has to be dropped against the present petitioner as well. Herein the [2025:RJ-JP:40069] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-11810/2025] investigating agency cannot take a ride of the system by conducting investigation in the manner they like as it is fundamental right of everyone to expect and demand fair investigation. We are still refraining ourselves to express our opinion about role and involvement of said University but we are concerned about the methodology adopted by the SOG in not taking action against an institution which was found involved in 57 cases. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, the 2nd application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by the applicant-accused Bharmal Ram S/o Naringa Ram is hereby dismissed. 16. In view of the above, a copy of this Order be sent to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and also to the DGP of Rajasthan, Jaipur for ensuring action as mentioned by this Court. 17. Office is directed to list for compliance after three months after disposal of the bail application. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/15