[2026:RJ-JP:17591] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2098/2026 Paurav Kaler S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Rampur, Police Station Chhapar, District Churu. Current Address B-6, 185 Sudarshan Nagar, Behind Nagenchi Maata Temple, Police Station Vyas Colony, District Bikaner (Raj.) (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitiz Singh, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary, Mr. S.S. Hora, For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Ms. Neha Goyal, Dr. Hari Prasad, I.O., Addl. DCP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Date of conclusion of arguments:- 23.04.2026 Date on which the judgment was Reserved :- 23.04.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced:- Full Judgment Date of pronouncement:- 27.04.2026 1. The present bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No.66/2024 dated 19.10.2024, registered at the Police Station Special Police Station [2026:RJ-JP:17591] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-2098/2026] (S.O.G.), District ATS & SOG Crime. The case concerns offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3, 4, 6, and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that accused petitioner has been falsely implicated and played no role in the alleged unfair activities during the Revenue Officer Grade II and Executive Officer Class IV (Self Governance Department) Recruitment Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue Officer Examination 2022’). It is contended that the accusation primarily relies on the claim that the petitioner transmitted leaked question papers via electronic devices, in exchange for money; however, there’s no credible or solid evidence to support this, and the allegations appear to be based on mere speculation. 3. It is further contended that the prosecution's case hinges mainly on call detail records and alleged digital links, but the SIM cards and mobile numbers involved are not registered in his client's name, nor has any device been recovered from him. He further pointed out that some candidates previously caught in this investigation have been granted bail, and the present petitioner’s case should similarly be treated with parity. 4. Additionally, the counsel emphasized that there is little chance of the petitioner fleeing or destroying evidence, as he has been in custody since 22.10.2024. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet was filed on 11.01.2025 and continued detention amounts to pre-trial incarceration, infringing on his [2026:RJ-JP:17591] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-2098/2026] fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard counsel has placed reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (AIR 1977 SC 2447), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, emphasizing that bail is generally the rule, and refusal must be justified by compelling reasons and reliance was also placed upon the judgments passed by this Court, Narendra vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12609/2013 and Rahul Katara vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20783/2021, to argue that the severity of the offense alone shouldn't be the sole basis for denying bail, but factors like flight risk and tampering must also be considered. Therefore considering the aforesaid facts and period of custody, the accused petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, strongly opposed the bail application and contended that charges against the petitioner are serious and linked to a well- organized syndicate involved in unfair practices during the Revenue Officer Examination, 2022. Learned AAG further stated that the charge sheet has already been filed, and collected evidence clearly shows the petitioner’s active and aware involvement. 6. The State’s counsel further explained that the petitioner received leaked questions via WhatsApp from co-accused Praveen Kumar Bishnoi and then transmitted them to candidates using Bluetooth devices during the exam in exchange of monetary benefit. The investigation indicates that the amounts paid by [2026:RJ-JP:17591] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-2098/2026] candidates were reflected in the petitioner’s bank account, suggesting his direct involvement. Moreover, evidence shows that he coordinated with co-accused and candidates, facilitating their preparations with electronic devices. 7. It is further contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender, with six previous cases of similar nature registered against him. This pattern of repeated offenses raises reasonable suspect that he could commit similar activities if released on bail. The offences are grave, with severe punishments, including life imprisonment, and they harm the integrity of the recruitment process all of which justify denying bail. 8. The State’s counsel further argued that earlier bail applications by the petitioner had been dismissed on merit, and there’s no new ground to reconsider the matter now. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offences, he contended that the application should be rejected. 9. After hearing both sides and reviewing the available evidence, it is clear that the case involves an organized syndicate engaged in cheating during the Revenue Officer Examination, 2022. The investigation suggests the petitioner played an active role, receiving leaked questions and communicating during the exam via Bluetooth, alongside facilitating other candidates and coordinating with co-accused, with evidence of financial transactions supporting this. 10. This Court recognizes that prolonged detention without trial isn’t ideal but must be balanced against the gravity of the charges, the petitioner’s role, and societal impact. While Article 21 safeguards personal liberty, it also requires a careful weighing of [2026:RJ-JP:17591] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-2098/2026] factors like evidence, potential for tampering, and possible flight risk. The law gives courts discretion to deny bail in cases of serious organized crimes like this, especially where public integrity is at stake. 11. In this regard, reference may also be made to Section 479 of BNSS, which reads as follows:- “479. The maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained. (1) Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one- half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail: Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past), he shall be released on bond by the Court if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.-In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. [2026:RJ-JP:17591] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-2098/2026] (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. (3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one- third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.” 12. The proviso appended to the above section specifies that if a person is a first-time offender and has undergone detention of one-third of the punishment provided, he shall be released on bail, which means thereby that the first-time offender may be detained lawfully up to a period of one-third of the imprisonment provided under the offence committed. 13. These procedures safeguards are enacted by the legislature and fundamentally flow from Article 21 of the Constitution. This established procedure firmly reinforces that the right to bail is contingent upon the just discretion of the Court. It is also to be noted that while bail is generally the rule and jail is the exception, the decision rests firmly on objective criteria and judicial discretion, ensuring that courts apply the same in accordance with the broad principles governing the granting or refusal of bail in individual cases. 14. Therefore, considering the fact that the previous bail applications have been rejected, significantly due to strong evidence of involvement. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.10.2024, and the allegations carry a serious penalty, including life imprisonment. Moreover, he is a habitual offender with six [2026:RJ-JP:17591] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-2098/2026] similar cases. As such, no grounds have emerged to justify a change in the earlier decisions. 15. In view of all the facts and circumstances, and after considering the gravity of the offence and the societal implications, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, finds no reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the accused petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav /86 171