[2025:RJ-JP:49025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 9888/2025 Sakan Singh Khadiya S/o Hurting Khadiya, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Bagyacha, P.s. Khushalgarh, District Bnaswara, Rajasthan. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Jitendra Choudhary Mr. Gaurav Sharma Ms. Kamini Pareek Mr. Vikas Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Girvar Singh, SI, P.S. Ramnagariya, Jaipur East is present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 02/12/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.311/2024 registered at Police Station-Ramnagariya, District-Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. 2. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he facilitated the engagement of a dummy candidate and played a [2025:RJ-JP:49025] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9888/2025] crucial role in enabling impersonation during the competitive examination. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is contended that the case of petitioner stands on parity with co- accused Dinesh Padwal, Heeraram Saran @ Harish and Rawtaram Patel, who have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. It is argued that the role attributed to the petitioner is limited one. Petitioner is behind the bars since 27.07.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in incarceration. The trial of the case may take considerable time, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail application by submitting that the offence strikes at the purity of public examinations and affects the integrity of the entire recruitment process. It is argued that the petitioner is a key facilitator, without whose active involvement, the alleged impersonation would not have been possible. The prosecution asserts that the petitioner acted as a linking agent and received financial benefit for coordinating the entire process. It is further submitted that the role of the petitioner is distinct and more significant than that of the co-accused Dinesh Padwal, Heeraram [2025:RJ-JP:49025] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9888/2025] Saran @ Harish and Rawtaram Patel, who have been granted bail. The petitioner is involved in organizing activities of a similar nature in previous examinations also and has criminal antecedent of the same nature, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, and the bail application may be dismissed. 6. On consideration of rival submissions and material available on record, especially the allegation of serious nature involving organized examination scam, having wide-ranging consequences on public employment and undermines the credibility of competent process but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to allow the present bail application filed by the petitioner. 7. Though co-accused Dinesh Padwal, Heeraram Saran @ Harish and Rawtaram Patel have been granted bail but the role of the petitioner cannot be said to be identical. The material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner was a Principal Coordinator, who arranged the dummy candidate, managed communication and facilitated the monetary transactions. 8. Hence, the present second bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/62