[2025:RJ-JP:41002] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12643/2025 Vijendra Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Madan Lal Joshi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Yalsar, Police Station Balara, District Sikar. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Saleh Mohd. Dy. SP, SOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/10/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Vijendra Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Madan Lal Joshi seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), District District ATS And SOG, for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 120- B of Indian Penal Code, 4,5, 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and 66- D of the Information and Technology Act. 2. The first bail application of present applicant was dismissed by this court on 01.09.2025. Now, second bail application is filed primarily on the ground that a charge-sheet has already been filed and case of present applicant is identical to Aditya [2025:RJ-JP:41002] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12643/2025] Upadhyay, who was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court after dismissal of bail by this court on 01.09.2025. 3. 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 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. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no evidence on the record to show that present applicant is a member of any syndicate or he has been involved in any other matter. He submits that identically placed Aditya Upadhyay was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 4100/2025. He also submits that at the time of consideration of bail due to some typographical error, this Hon’ble Court has considered that the charge sheet has not been filed but in fact charge sheet was filed on date of consideration of bail of present applicant. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of SOG. He submits the status report and candidly admits that a charge sheet was already filed at the time of consideration of first bail application by the Hon’ble Court. [2025:RJ-JP:41002] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12643/2025] 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 7. A bunch of 53 bail applications were decided by this Court by common order dated 01.09.2025, wherein we have specifically detailed the case of Aditya Upadhyay, from whom present applicant has claimed parity. This court has dismissed the bail application of Aditya Upadhyay, but later in Criminal Appeal No. 4100/2025, arising out of SLP Criminal No. 14272/2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Aditya Upadhyay. 8. While considering principle of parity in order dated 01.09.2025, one of the counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Shahrukh @ Banti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1289/2023), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the principle of parity in bail matters and observed that if an accused who is granted bail and a similarly placed accused has an identical role, involvement and circumstances, then only he can seek bail on parity ground but it is not a rule of automatic bail for accused who subsequently applied for bail. A duty is casted upon the Court to examine actual role, criminal record and specific fact about each and every accused. 9. Having considered the fact that there is no criminal antecedents against the applicant and further identically placed Aditya Upadhyay was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, considering the principle of parity [2025:RJ-JP:41002] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-12643/2025] as discussed hereinabove, the Court cannot take any hyper technical approach. 10. Thus, the instant 2nd bail application filed on behalf of applicant- accused Vijendra Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Madan Lal Joshi, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicant-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 applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /09