[2026:RJ-JP:2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16824/2025 Dholaram S/o Shri Mangilal Vishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kumharwas, Magriwada, Tehsil Revdar, Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi, Presently Patwari, Tehsil Office Revdar, District Sirohi. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat, Adv., with Mr. Pushpendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/01/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.89/2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairmeans) Act, 1992. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel referred order dated 24.02.2025 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench wherein Bench has allowed bail application of Sunil Kumar in almost identical case wherein a dummy candidate has appeared in PTI Examination. He further submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:2020] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16824/2025] allegation against the present petitioner is that he did not appear in person for the Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination, 2021. Instead, his elder brother, namely Hanuman, who is already working as a Village Development Officer, appeared in his place. He further submits that this is not a case of involvement with any gang or other person. Further, he submits that the investigation relating to present petitioner is complete and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He argues that in case, the petitioner is required for further investigation, the petitioner will be available for such investigation. He further argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the material available on record and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Dholaram S/o Shri Mangilal Vishnoi shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in [2026:RJ-JP:2020] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16824/2025] the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/171