[2025:RJ-JP:33672] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2462/2025 Jitendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Late Shri Jagdish Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o A-80, Anupam Vihar, Maharana Pratap Road, Panchyawala, Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2565/2025 Deepak Singh Shekhawat S/o Lt. Shri Laxman Singh Shekhwat, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Jaysinghpura, Police Station Bhabru District Jaipur Rural At Present R/o As A Tenant House, Bhusan I.t.i. Gali, Ganesh Vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Centre Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma with Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Chandraprakash, ACT, Cyber Crime Jaipur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/07/2025 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.19/2025 registered at Cyber Police Station, Commissionerate Jaipur, District Dy. Commissioner Police Crime Commissionerate, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 61(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in [2025:RJ-JP:33672] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2462/2025] short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(b), 316(5) & 238(c) of BNS 2023, Sections 43, 66 & 66C of IT Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since 31.01.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that during investigation, it has come on record that accused-petitioners were working as Computer Operators and they conspired to steal the question papers from the computer and transmitted the same through social media platform. Counsel submits that picture of question paper has been found on the Instagram ID of petitioner Deepak Singh Shekhawat which was sent to him by petitioner Jitendra Singh Shekhawat. He submits that it has also transpired from the charge-sheet that a CPU has been recovered at the instance of petitioner Jitendra Singh Shekhawat wherein typed copy of question papers has been found. He submits that there has been [2025:RJ-JP:33672] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2462/2025] increase in incidents of paper leak/paper theft in public examination which has raised serious question on the validity of public examinations and has shaken the confidence of general public. He further submits that in such a situation, a strict approach should be adopted while dealing with bail applications filed on behalf of accused persons. Counsel submits that apart from this, this type of crime adversely affects the deserving candidates. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge- sheet, more particularly, arguments advanced by learned State Counsel as noted above that petitioners were appointed on important post and by misusing their position, they have caused grave danger to the entire public examination system thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, these bail applications stand dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are 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 LALIT MOHAN /44-45