Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7108 (RAJ)

RAHUL MEENA S/O SHRI DHARAM SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/5698/2026 · 2026-05-20

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:21391] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5698/2026 Rahul Meena S/o Shri Dharam Singh Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 108, Hanuman Ji Wala Jareda Karoli (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 20/05/2026 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 224/2023 registered at Police Station Amber, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of The Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 the accused-petitioner has preferred the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the main allegation are against other co-accused Vikram Meena and Bhay Singh. It is alleged against in the present case that in place of Vikram Meena, Bhay Singh appeared in the examination of SSC MTS held in the year 2023. It is contended that only allegation against the petitioner is that he induced co- accused Vikram Meena to appear in place of Bhay Singh in lieu of [2026:RJ-JP:21391] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5698/2026] Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh). It is also argued that there is no such transaction available on the record and petitioner has been involved solely on the interrogation note of the other co-accused. The accused-petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not required, therefore, anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the main allegation are against other co-accused namely Vikram Meena and Bhay. The other co-accused Bhay Singh appeared as dummy candidate in place of Vikram Meena and apart from the interrogation note of the other co-accused there is no substantive evidence available on the record scrutinizing the fact that petitioner induced the co- accused to appear in examination in lieu of Rs. 1,00,00/-(one lakh). The accused-petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, therefore without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner namely- Rahul Meena S/o Shri Dharam Singh Meena, in connection with FIR No. 224/2023 registered at Police Station Amber, District Jaipur City (North) he shall be released on [2026:RJ-JP:21391] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5698/2026] bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (iv) that the petitioner shall submit his mobile phone alongwith the sim card to the concerned investigating officer (v) that the petitioner shall submit his present address to the concerned investigating officer. In case of any change in the present address then also he will intimate the same to the concerned Investigating Officer. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J asjhu/75