[2026:RJ-JP:34118] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5878/2026 CNR: RJHC020357312026 | URN: CRLMB / 10526U / 2026 Devinarayan S/o Ramcharan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o B 250, Janta Colony, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Presently Posted As Chief Physician Medicine, Government District Hospital, Phalodi (Rajasthan). (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ---Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6832/2026 CNR: RJHC020412442026 | URN: CRLMB / 12357U / 2026 Prem Kumar S/o Jodharam, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 13/100, Malviya Nagar, Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur East, At Present Junior Specialist Medicine, Chc Presently District Phalodi (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7956/2026 CNR: RJHC020452662026 | URN: CRLMB / 14559U / 2026 Manoj Kumar S/o Rameshwar Prasad, R/o Plot No. 116, Jaipur Bypass Tiraha, Jyoti Nagar, PS Kotwali, Dausa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As Junior Specialist, Chest Physician, Govt. District Hospital, Banswara (Raj.). (Accused Presently Confined At District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Adeet Shrivastava, Mr. Tapeshwar Singh Parmar for Mr. Rajesh Goswami. Mr. Sudhir Jain, [2026:RJ-JP:34118] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-5878/2026] Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. Naman Yadav, For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order 24/08/2026 1. By these three separate bail applications, the petitioners seek to be enlarged on bail in FIR No. 60/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa, Rajasthan. The FIR is for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. In the course of investigation, petitioners Devinarayan and Manoj Kumar were arrested on 30.03.2026. Petitioner Prem Kumar was arrested on 01.04.2026. All three have remained in custody since their respective dates of arrest. They are working as Chief Physician Medicine-Dr. Devinarayan, Junior Specialist (Medicine)-Dr. Prem Kumar and Junior Specialist (Chest Physician)-Dr. Manoj Kumar, respectively. 3. The bail applications moved by the petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Dausa, were dismissed by orders dated 08.04.2026, 10.04.2026 and 24.04.2026. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court. 4. The prosecution case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid orders, is briefly this. On 29.01.2024, Dr. R. C. Meena, Chief Medical Officer, Dausa, submitted a report vide Letter No. General 2024-570. As per the list annexed, 2,453 silicosis certificates had been issued in District Dausa by the doctors and radiographers concerned. A committee constituted by the Principal, [2026:RJ-JP:34118] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-5878/2026] S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, comprising Dr. C. P. Sawarkar, Dr. Mukesh Mittal and Dr. Sunil Jakhada, examined the matter. By letter dated 20.11.2023, the committee reported serious irregularities in the silicosis certificates. Certificates were issued to persons who were not suffering from silicosis. Certificates of persons actually suffering from silicosis were rejected. Irregularities were also found in the X rays uploaded by the radiographers. On the basis of the said report, the Commissioner and Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Specially Abled Persons, found that a wrongful payment of Rs. 12.43 crore had been made in 413 cases through the auto renewal process. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced the following submissions. 5.1 The entire certification process is conducted digitally on the New Silicosis Portal 2022. The workflow is strictly compartmentalised. The foundational medical evidence consists of the X ray uploaded by the radiographer and the opinion recorded by the radiologist. The petitioners had no role in generating, altering or determining that underlying medical evidence. 5.2 The prosecution case itself proceeds on the footing that the portal has an auto approval mechanism. Once the radiologist certifies a case as positive for silicosis, the case is automatically routed to the identity of the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer has no technical functionality to override the positive opinion of the radiologist. He has no statutory authority or independent discretion to reject it either. The role attributed to the petitioners was, therefore, ministerial and mechanical. It was performed in compliance with the prescribed digital workflow. 5.3 The decision to sanction and disburse financial assistance rests with the Social Welfare Board or Department concerned. That body [2026:RJ-JP:34118] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-5878/2026] exercises its own administrative and expert oversight. The petitioners had neither the power nor the authority to sanction or disburse the assistance in question. 5.4 There is no material on record to show that the petitioners derived any pecuniary benefit. No illicit money or alleged commission has been recovered from them. No independent material has been produced to establish a financial nexus between the petitioners and the alleged beneficiaries. The allegation of receipt of commission is bald and unsubstantiated. 5.5 Bail was declined below on the apprehension that the petitioners, holding senior medical positions, may tamper with the evidence. That apprehension is not borne out by the nature of the evidence. The prosecution case rests substantially on digital records, portal data, IPDRs, uploaded X rays, auto approval logs and other documentary material. All of it is already in the custody of the investigating agency. The petitioners have neither the access nor the technical means to alter, delete or manipulate such evidence. 5.6 The investigation qua the petitioners is substantially complete. The mobile phone and SIM card of the petitioners were seized at the time of arrest. No further custodial interrogation is warranted. Continued detention would serve no investigative purpose. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications. He submits that if any concession is granted to the petitioners, misuse thereof cannot be ruled out. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 8. So far as the submission on absence of culpability is concerned, that is a matter of trial. There may be some substance in a few of the [2026:RJ-JP:34118] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-5878/2026] arguments advanced. However, no definitive opinion can be recorded at this stage, and none is recorded. 9. It is borne out that the petitioners have been in custody since their respective dates of arrest. The investigation stands concluded and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioners are not required for any further investigation. 10. On the other hand, the trial cannot commence for want of sanction for prosecution. Delay is thus not of their (petitioners) making and is attributable to the prosecution. 11. There is no material to suggest that the petitioners are a flight risk. 12. There is likewise no material to suggest that they are likely to tamper with the evidence. 13. The investigation qua the petitioners is complete. The crucial digital evidence already stands seized by the investigating agency. Such evidence includes the mobile phone of the petitioner. It also includes his SIM card. 14. The prosecution case substantially rests upon documentary and digital evidence. The same includes IPDRs. It also includes portal generated records. All such material is already in the custody of the investigating agency. It is equally within its control and beyond the reach of petitioners and thus no likelihood of it being tempered. 15. In these circumstances, since no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted, the continued preventive detention of the petitioners, on unfounded apprehension, would serve no meaningful investigative purpose. [2026:RJ-JP:34118] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-5878/2026] 14. Accordingly, these three bail petitions are allowed. It is ordered that the accused petitioners, namely, (1) Devinarayan son of Ramcharan, (2) Prem Kumar son of Jodharam and (3) Manoj Kumar son of Rameshwar Prasad, shall be released on bail in FIR No. 60/2024, for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa, Rajasthan. 15. The release shall be subject to each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court or the Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, for their appearance in trial whenever called upon to do so, till the conclusion of the trial. 16. The observations made hereinabove are confined to the disposal of these bail applications. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any of them. (ARUN MONGA),J 67-69/Ramesh Vaishnav/Ashwani