[2026:RJ-JP:22053] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4725/2026 Sukesh Kumar S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Behind Roadways Bus Stand, Mehra Colony, Police Station Kotwali, Shikohabad, District Firozabad Uttar Pradesh. Presently Principal, Government Bhadawar Vidya Mandir Degree College, Bah, District Agra And Chancellor And Trustee, J.s. University, Shikohabad. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. --Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4763/2026 Sukesh Kumar S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Behind Roadways Bus Stand, Mehra Colony, Police Station Kotwali, Shikohabad, District Firozabad Uttar Pradesh. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Himanshu Agarwal Ms. Amulya Jemini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Date of conclusion of arguments:- 15.05.2026 Date on which the judgment was Reserved :- 15.05.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced:- Full Judgment Date of pronouncement:- 25.05.2026 [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (2 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] 1. These bail applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the accused- petitioner- Sukesh Kumar arising out of two different FIRs registered at Special Police Station S.O.G., Jaipur, District ATS & SOG, particulars whereof are stated hereinbelow:- Sr. FIR No. Offences Police Station Charge sheet Date of Arrest 1. FIR No. 37/2025 Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B IPC Police Station S.O.G., Jaipur Filed 24.11.2025 2. FIR No. 14/2025 Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC Police Station S.O.G., Jaipur Filed 21.01.2026 2. Since both the FIRs arise out of the same set of allegations and involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present matters and the allegations levelled in both the FIRs are nothing but an offshoot of the investigation already undertaken in the principal FIR No.13/2024 registered by S.O.G., which relates to alleged irregularities in B.P.Ed. degrees issued by OPJS University. It is contended that the subsequent FIRs arise out of the same transaction and therefore, registration of successive FIRs on the very same substratum of facts is impermissible in law. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases: T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (3 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] (2001) 6 SCC 181; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI & Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 348; Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 208; Uday Chand Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, (1983) 2 SCC 417. 3.1. It is submitted that in present FIR No.14/2025, the fact alleged by the prosecution is that during investigation of principal FIR No.13/2024, information was received from one Pradeep Kumar Sharma under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (now, Section 23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and a pen- drive allegedly containing details regarding candidates were recovered. Similarly, the FIR No.37/2025, was registered considering the statement of one Mohit Gupta, an employee of OPJS University, regarding time-stamping and printing of degrees from the University server. It is submitted that both these aspects already formed part of the investigation in the principal FIR No.13/2024 and even the charge-sheet filed therein deals with such material and statements and therefore, the present FIRs are merely successive FIRs founded upon additional information gathered during investigation of the principal FIR. 3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was merely holding the honorary position of Chancellor of the University and had no active role in the day-to-day administration, admission process, issuance of marksheets and degrees. It is contended that none of the alleged forged degrees or mark-sheets bear the signature of the petitioner and there is no allegation that the petitioner prepared, fabricated or issued any forged document. [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (4 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] 3.3. It is further argued that except for bald allegations regarding the status of the petitioner as Chancellor of the University, there is no direct material connecting him with the alleged offences, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the accused petitioner and no material has been placed on record showing his involvement in preparation of forged documents or in any financial transaction with candidates. It is also contended that vicarious criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner merely on account of his designation in absence of specific overt acts attributed to him. Furthermore, it is contended that the petitioner is in custody since long and charge-sheets have already been filed in both the FIRs, no further recovery remains to be effected and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the accused petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the bail applications and submit that the present matter pertains to a large-scale and organized conspiracy relating to issuance of forged and backdated B.P.Ed. degrees and mark-sheets by OPJS University, which were subsequently utilized by candidates for securing appointments in the Physical Education Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2022 (for short, ‘PET Exam, 2022’). It is submitted that despite limited sanctioned intake capacity, thousands of candidates were illegally issued degrees in gross violation of statutory provisions and several such candidates were ultimately selected in government service on the strength of such forged educational qualifications. [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (5 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] 4.1. It is further submitted that the accused-petitioner was not merely holding an honorary designation of Chancellor, but was the controlling authority in the OPJS University and was actively involved in the functioning and affairs of the institution. It is submitted that during investigation, statements of witnesses, documentary material and other evidence collected by the investigating agency disclose that the petitioner exercised control over the affairs of the University and the alleged forged B.P.Ed. degrees and mark-sheets were issued under his supervision. 4.2. Learned counsel further submits that investigation has specifically revealed that forged and backdated B.P.Ed. degrees were prepared by other officials of the University under the directions of the accused petitioner and monetary benefits arising out of such illegal activities ultimately accrued to the Trust controlling the University, of which the petitioner was the Chairman, which substantiate the fact that the petitioner played a central role in the alleged conspiracy. 4.3. It is also contended that the present FIRs are based upon distinct facts and specific transactions which surfaced during the course of investigation, have a serious impact upon the integrity of public recruitment and relate to different sets of candidates and forged documents and cannot be treated as impermissible successive FIRs. The accused petitioner is a habitual offender and against him several criminal cases of similar nature are already pending, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the present bail application deserves dismissal. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (6 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] 6. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the principles governing permissibility of multiple FIRs and successive investigations laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358, wherein it was observed as under:- “9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” (Emphasis Supplied) 6.1. The aforesaid principles makes it clear that a subsequent FIR is permissible where it discloses a rival version, counter-complaint or arises out of fresh facts, new circumstances or a larger conspiracy which had not surfaced at the time of registration of the earlier FIR. [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (7 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] 6.2. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a very recent case of Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2026 INSC 509 decided on 18.05.2026, has held as under:- “24. In such a situation, the principle laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (Supra), as consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions of this Court, squarely applies, inasmuch as there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates a single, comprehensive investigation, with liberty to the investigating agency to conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports, rather than permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different fora. 25. Permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different jurisdictions on the same set of facts would not only be contrary to the settled legal position but would also result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioners. At the same time, consolidation of such FIRs at one place would subserve the ends of justice by ensuring a coordinated, effective and complete investigation, while also safeguarding the right of the petitioners to mount an effective and meaningful defence in a singular proceeding.” 6.3. This Court is also mindful of the fact that, there may be situations where, during investigation of a particular FIR, the investigating agency comes across material disclosing commission of a distinct and independent offence altogether unconnected with the original occurrence, thereby justifying registration of a fresh FIR and consequential arrest of the accused in the subsequent case; take for instance, during investigation of one offence found involvement of the accused in another independent offence of a completely different nature or reveals a larger conspiracy, then in that case, registration of a separate FIR may be legally [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (8 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] permissible in light of the principle laid down in the case of Surendra Singh Rathore (Supra). 6.4. 6.4. It is also to be borne in mind that whether the subsequent FIR discloses a distinct offence or merely reiterates substantially identical allegations arising out of the same transaction is a question which is to be determined in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a straightjacket formula that can be applied in this regard as each case requires careful scrutiny of the nature of allegations, continuity of transaction, identity of parties, overlap of evidence and the foundational facts forming basis of the subsequent FIR. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the issue as to whether the accused-petitioner have been repeatedly subjected to successive FIRs and arrests on the same substratum of allegations has to be examined in light of the facts emerging from the present FIR No. 14/2025 and 37/2025 as well as the conclusions drawn during investigation in the principal FIR No.13/2024. 7.1. The complainant in the principal FIR No.13/2024 registered at Police Station S.O.G., Jaipur alleged that he had applied for direct recruitment on the post of Physical Training Instructor and appeared in the PET Exam, 2022, but could not succeed and subsequently came to know that backdated and forged degrees had allegedly been issued in favour of several candidates who participated in the said examination. 7.2. The FIR further alleged that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had also invited applications for recruitment to the post of Librarian in the year 2024 and similar irregularities relating [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (9 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] to issuance of backdated educational qualifications by officials of OPJS University surfaced therein as well. During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined records received from the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board pertaining to candidates who had appeared in the Physical Teacher Recruitment Examinations conducted in the years 2018 and 2022 and allegedly found discrepancies in the result dates reflected in the mark-sheets issued to students belonging to the same academic session of the B.P.Ed. course. The investigation further concluded that such degrees and mark-sheets had been issued by incorporating backdated entries in lieu of monetary consideration. 7.3. The Investigating Officer further found that large-scale issuance of such forged and backdated degrees was wholly disproportionate to the sanctioned intake capacity of the University and on the basis of such educational qualifications, several candidates had secured appointments in State Government service. The investigation also revealed that admissions were allegedly granted on a large scale without counselling and in violation of the prescribed admission procedure governing the B.P.Ed. course. Despite repeated communications, OPJS University allegedly failed to furnish accreditation documents and relevant records pertaining to the academic sessions of 2018 and 2019. 7.4. The present FIR No.37/2025 further alleges that during investigation in the principal FIR No.13/2024, examination of the University server revealed that except for one candidate, the degrees relating to sessions from 2017 to 2019 had been printed [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (10 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] and issued after publication of the advertisement for the PET Exam, 2022 or after completion of the selection process and the investigation confirmed that such degrees were issued subsequently but were backdated to earlier academic sessions. 7.5. A combined reading of the present FIRs and the charge- sheet filed in principal FIR No.13/2024 prima facie reveals that the primarily scope of investigation in the principal FIR was also with regard to alleged issuance of forged and backdated B.P.Ed. degrees by OPJS University and consequential appointments secured in the PET Exam, 2022 on the strength of such educational qualifications. The substratum of allegations, factual foundation and material relied upon in the present FIRs substantially overlap with the allegations already forming part of FIR No.13/2024. 7.6. It is also not disputed that the charge-sheet in principal FIR No.13/2024 came to be filed on 30.09.2024 and the present FIRs were registered nearly after a year and during this period, the investigating agency was fully aware that the accused-petitioner were already in judicial custody in connection with the principal FIR and were available for further investigation. The material now relied upon in the present FIRs primarily pertains to allegations that the degrees had been generated and issued in a backdated manner through the University server. 7.7. It is pertinent to note that examination of the University server records regarding issuance of degrees merely supports the allegation that the degrees were issued in a backdated manner, which aspect already forms part of the investigation in FIR [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (11 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] No.13/2024 and such material, by itself, does not prima facie constitute a separate or independent offence and appears to be in the nature of corroborative evidence available to the prosecution in support of the allegations already under investigation and therefore, mere revelation of issuance of backdated degrees, cannot by itself give rise to a distinct offence warranting registration of a fresh FIR. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the fact that the present FIRs do not prima facie disclose any substantially new or distinct factual foundation beyond the allegations already forming part of the investigation in the principal FIR, the subsequent arrest of the accused-petitioner appears to be unjustified and not in consonance with the settled principles of law, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Sukesh Kumar S/O Jagdish Singh, in connection with FIR No. 37/2025 and FIR No. 14/2025, both registered at Special Police Station S.O.G., Jaipur District ATS & SOG, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The learned trial Judge shall also verify the address and the contact details of the surety through concerned S.H.O. before releasing the accused-petitioner on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:22053] (12 of 12) [CRLMB-4725/2026] 9.1. The accused-petitioner is also directed to mark his presence on 25th of every month before the concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial. The SHO of the concerned Police Station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioner and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner on the same day to the concerned trial Court every month without any delay. 9.2. The accused-petitioner is directed to submit his present address along with his mobile number to the concerned S.H.O. within 7 days from his release and the concerned S.H.O. shall verify the said address and the mobile number. In case if the petitioner changes his address or mobile number he shall submit the same before the concerned S.H.O. and also before the concerned learned trial Court. In case of any breach of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the accused-petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. 9.3. A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned S.H.O. for its strict compliance. 10. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail applications and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86/Supp.-1-2