[2026:RJ-JP:16363] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 6th Bail Application No. 1235/2026 Kamal Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Verma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 12-13, Green Vihar, Charan Nadi 2, Naadi Ka Phatak, Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 18/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this sixth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.13/2022 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420 and 120(b) IPC and Section 3 and 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measure For Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel primarily urged the ground of prolonged incarceration contending that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.05.2022, for a substantial period of time, and is entitled to the benefit of Section 479 of the BNSS. In support of his [2026:RJ-JP:16363] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1235/2026] contention, he has relied on the following judgments: 1. In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406/2013 order dated 19th November, 2024. 2. Rishabh Gehlot Vs. State (NCT of Delhli), Bail Application No.2071/2025 decided on 13.04.2026 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the earlier bail applications of the petitioner have been consistently rejected. It is further submitted that even the challenge to the rejection of the fourth bail application was carried before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which also came to be dismissed; trial is about to complete as out of 46 witnesses around 32 witnesses have been examined. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. At the outset, it is to be noted that this is the sixth successive bail application. It is a settled principle of law that successive bail applications are maintainable only upon substantial change in circumstances. No such material change in circumstances has been pointed out by the petitioner except seeking the benefit on the basis of passage of incarceration as envisaged under Section 479 of the BNSS. 6. So far as the contention based on Section 479 of the BNSS as well as on the judgments cited as above is concerned, it is well settled that the benefit on account of long incarceration is not an indefeasible right, but a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each [2026:RJ-JP:16363] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1235/2026] case and cannot be granted as a matter of right. 7. The allegation in the present case pertains to a question paper leak involving an organized conspiracy, which strikes at the root of fairness in public examinations and has wide social ramifications. The material available on record, including the CCTV footage, prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner. In such circumstances, mere passage of time or length of custody, in absence of any significant change in circumstances, cannot be a ground to take a view different from the one consistently taken earlier, particularly when the earlier rejection has also attained finality up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to allow the present bail application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/S-17