[2025:RJ-JP:48467] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14663/2025 Smt. Manju Kumari Wife Of Shri Premratan Vishnoi Daughter Of Shri Omprakash Vishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Sector 05, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Police Thana Mukta Prasad Nagar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan At Present Supervisor (Women Empowerment) Bajju, Bikaner, Rajasthan (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Niyaz Mohd. Khan, Dy.S.P. (SOG) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 28/11/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 39/2024 registered at Police Station S.O.G., District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 419, 420, 120B of IPC & Sections 4, 5, 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66D of IT Act, 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the matter at hand pertains to one public examination conducted in the year 2018. It is submitted that while carrying out investigation by the SOG, in prospect of Sub Inspector Examination 2021, one [2025:RJ-JP:48467] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14663/2025] of the co-accused has averred the name of the present applicant, being a successful candidate by adopting use of unfair means, such as bluetooth device, along with five other persons in collusion with Kaler gang. It is submitted that the applicant is mother of approximately three and a half year old child and that the applicant is in custody since 10.09.2025, and that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that there are as many as 44 witnesses in the instant case and the trial will take its own time to conclude. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ankita Godara Versus State of Rajasthan: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5406/2025, relying upon which vide annexure-3, interim bail and thereafter final bail was granted in Manju Bhambu Versus State of Rajasthan: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8118/2025 under the similar facts and circumstances. 3. Per contra, Investigating Officer, who has marked presence in-person and learned Public Prosecutor have strongly objected to the instant application. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case, which are being equated with the relied upon judgments, are entirely distinguishable, as the bail granted therein by the Hon’ble Apex Court was when the period of custody was above one year. It is further submitted that in the similar circumstances, as that of the present matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11635/2025 titled as Dinesh Singh Chauhan Versus State of Rajasthan and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8176/2025 titled as Paurav Kaler Versus State of [2025:RJ-JP:48467] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14663/2025] Rajasthan has taken a considerate view and rejected the bail of the applicants therein. It is contended by the Investigating Officer and the learned Public Prosecutor that in the public examinations, using unfair means like bluetooth device, where there is an application of the Act of 1992 pertaining to use of unfair practice in public examination and the IT Act, it is to be analyzed that it is a trivial that is faced by unemployed meritorious youth. It is submitted that the said conduct of the applicant is heinous in nature which not only effects individuals but has a writ large effect nevertheless, aids corruption and ruins the entire economic system of the State. It is lastly submitted that merely because the applicant in the instant matter is a female, consideration ought not to be given. 4. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and the Investigating Officer and taking note of the fact that the applicant has adopted the use of unfair practice in the Public Examination; that the said offence is of grave and heinous nature as it effects the entire public recruitment process; that due to the conduct of the applicant the trivial will be faced by the meritorious and deserving youth of the State; that the said conduct not only aids corruption but also ruin the entire economic system of the State, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances but without commenting upon the merits/demerits of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. 5. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/86