[2025:RJ-JP:11361] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1041/2025 Hetram Meena S/o Shri Ratanlal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ukhlana, Tehsil Uniyara, P.s. Aligharh, District Tonk. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1238/2025 Rajveer Meena S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Bindarwada, Police Station Manpur, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.492/2024 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 6 & 7 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned [2025:RJ-JP:11361] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1041/2025] counsel submit that false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners as examination which was conducted by the Railway Selection Board does not fall within Schedule I. It is submitted that maximum allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of Bluetooth while appearing in the said examination. It is submitted that maximum term of punishment for the alleged offences is seven years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioners that they were found using Bluetooth in the examination hall. It is submitted that looking to the growing tendency of such offences, bail should not be granted to the petitioners. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Hetram Meena S/o Shri Ratanlal Meena and 2) Rajveer Meena S/o Shri Girraj Prasad [2025:RJ-JP:11361] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1041/2025] Meena shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioners are further directed to mark their presence in the concerned police station once in three months, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 10. The observations made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /362-363