[2026:RJ-JP:2503] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11956/2025 Ganpat Lal Maalwada S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Malwada Tehsil Chitalwana, Police Station Chitalwana, District Jalore. Currently Residing At Plot No. 118, H R Nagar, Sanchore (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandliya Mr. Manish Kumar Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Mahaveer Singh, Addl. S.P., SOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 20/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.18/2025 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), ATS and SOG, District Jaipur for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and 2(F)(II), 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 petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that although there is an allegation against the present petitioner that he made certain papers available to the candidates appearing in the recruitment for the post of School Lecturer [2026:RJ-JP:2503] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11956/2025] Examination, 2022 for monetary gain but no financial transaction with any candidate has been established, nor is there any cogent documentary evidence to support such allegation. He further contends that on identical allegations, the co-accused Sumer Bishnoi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025, and beneficiary co-accused, Kavita, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.12.2025. Further, other co-accused, namely Deepak Lakshkar @ Vishnu and Om Prakash, have also been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.01.2026 and 17.12.2025, respectively. It is again contended that the case of the present petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.07.2025. The investigation/trial is likely to take considerable time. The charge-sheet has already been filed and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Therefore, on the ground of parity as well as on the other grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that the present petitioner played an active and pivotal role in facilitating candidates by making available the question papers in lieu of monetary consideration, and the entire prosecution case revolves around the petitioner. The name of the petitioner finds explicit mention in the FIR. It is further contended that the petitioner played a crucial role in the commission of unfair means in the School Lecturer Examination, [2026:RJ-JP:2503] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11956/2025] 2022. The prosecution relies upon telephonic conversations and their transcriptions between the present petitioner and other candidates, which prima facie reveal that the petitioner supplied question papers for monetary gain. Learned Public Prosecutor further urges that the petitioner is the kingpin of the offence and has severely compromised the sanctity and integrity of the recruitment process. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, having five criminal antecedents of similar nature to his discredit. Considering the gravity, magnitude, and seriousness of the offence, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, and accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the petitioner has the lead role in organised examination scam having wide ranging consequences on public employment and undermines the credibility of complete process. The use of unfair means in the public examination strikes at the root of meritocracy and public confidence. 6. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh & ors., reported in 2025 INSC 341, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2503] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11956/2025] 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." 7. Hence, in view of the above, this Court does not find it appropriate to allow this bail application. 8. Though co-accused namely Sumer Bishnoi, Kavita, Deepak Lakshkar @ Vishnu, and Om Prakash have been granted bail but the role attributed to the present petitioner cannot be said to be identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. The material collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner acted as a principal coordinator, who managed the commission of the offence and facilitated the monetary transactions. 9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/36