[2025:RJ-JP:26412] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2622/2025 Tulcharam Kaler S/o Asharam Kaler, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Rampur, Devani P.S Chhapar, District Churu, Present Tenant Plot No. 70, Orif Prime Villa, Jaisinghpura, P.S.Bhankrota, District Jaipur. (Accused In Present Confined In Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, G.A.-cum-AAG Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Dy. G.A. Dr. Hari Prasad, Addl. S.P., SOG present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 15/07/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.66/2024 registered at Police Station-ATS and SOG District Special Police Station (S.O.G.) for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 3, 4, 6 and 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment), Act, 2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned G.A.-cum- AAG as well as Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Dy. G.A. and perused the material available on record. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 14.08.2024, the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, [2025:RJ-JP:26412] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2622/2025] Ajmer made a complaint, alleging use of unfair means during the Revenue Officer Grade II and Executive Officer Class-4 (Local Self- Government Department) Competitive Examination 2022 by accused candidates namely Deepak Prajapat, Sunil Jakhar, Omprakash, Komal, Ram Singh, Jitendra Kumar Bijaria, Babita Kumari Rewade, Mitesh Kumar, Rajaram, Premchand Jyani, Babita Vishnoi, Omprakash Jakhar, Phagluram and Ishwar Singh Jakhar. The said examination was conducted in two phases on 14.05.2023 and with respect to the First Phase, FIR was lodged at Police Station, Naya Shahar, Police Station, Gangashahar, Bikaner. In pursuance of the same, Bluetooth devices were recovered from the accused candidates during their second shift while another accused, Tulchharam Kaler was arrested on the ground that he was helping the candidates in cheating with the help of Bluetooth device, while being present in Salasar. Upon analysing the CDR as well as the mobile numbers used at the time of the said examination, it was found that the accused candidates along with other accused were indulged in the practice of using unfair means for the said examination. Moreover, it was also mentioned that the from the location traced at Salasar Mobile Tower, more than 4000 outgoing calls have been made through eight different mobile numbers in order to cheat and using unfair means in the said examination. Thus, on account of the said complaint, FIR No. 66/2024 was lodged against the accused persons, including the petitioner-Tulchharam. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not [2025:RJ-JP:26412] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2622/2025] related to any racket using unfair means in examination. No investigation is required from the petitioner and charge-sheet has been filed. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. He strenuously contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.10.2024. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 5. On the contrary, learned G.A.-cum-AAG and Dy. G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. They contended that the petitioner is the king-pin of the offence of organized mass copying in the examination by using unauthorized means which falls under the category of serious offences and there are 13 other cases of similar nature pending against him. They further submitted that at the instance of the petitioner, the mobile phone as well as the vehicle used in the alleged incident was recovered. The room of the hotel in which the mass copying was done was booked in the name of nephew of the present petitioner. Even the record of different toll plazas shows presence of the petitioner Tulcharam Kaler at Salasar which is supported by the traced location of his mobile. They argued that in view of the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh & ors., reported in 2025 INSC 341, the offence has societal impact, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any concession, hence the bail application of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 6. On consideration of the rival submission and material [2025:RJ-JP:26412] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2622/2025] available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the petitioner has the lead role in mass copying and use of unfair means in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The use of unfair means in the public examination strikes at the root of meritocracy and public confidence. 7. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indraj Singh (supra) which runs as under: "11. Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent-accused have indeed not committed any crime in law." 8. Therefore, in view of the above but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/12