[2026:RJ-JP:21859] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1158/2026 Sher Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gangava Kheda, Post Surana, Police Station Sayla, District Jalore At Present Probationer Sub Inspector Police Line Kota City. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2627/2026 Ashok Kumar S/o Jeevanram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Phulsaar Bada, Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner At Present Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Bajju, District Bikaner. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3104/2026 Chunaram S/o Hariram, R/o Bhateep, P.s. Karda, Distt. Jalore, Presently Sub Inspector (Probationer), Reserve Police Line Udaipur. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3105/2026 Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh Meena S/o Gopal Meena, R/o Dola Ka Bas, Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, P.s. Kaladera, Distt. Jaipur Rural. (Presently Confined In High Security Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (2 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3889/2026 Abhay Singh Son Of Shri Pooman Chand, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Sivada, Jalore ( Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4005/2026 Harshvardhan Kumar Meena S/o Murari Lal Meena, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Salampur Police Station, Mahua, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4632/2026 Kunal Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Village Karani, Post Jhanwar, Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur at present Sub Inspector (probationer) Reserve Police Line Rajsamand (At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5103/2026 Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Pancharam Khileri, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Isrol, Police Station Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 5781/2026 Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Foosaram Dhaka, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dhakon Ki Dhani, Pur, Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore, Presently Suspended Senior Teacher, Govt. Senior Secondary School Sankad, Sanchore, Presently Posted Block [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (3 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] Education Officer, Office Sanchore. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5782/2026 Ganpat Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Malaram Godara, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Karawadi, Police Station Jhab, District Jalore, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6448/2026 Subhash Muwal S/o Shri Surajmal Muwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vishanpura Urf Charanvas, Tehsil Chomu Police Station Samod, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7105/2026 Paurav Kaler S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Rampur, Police Station Chhapar, District Churu. Current Address B-6, 185 Sudarshana Nagar, Behind Nagenchi Maata Temple, Police Station Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.) (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7106/2026 Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmalram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Matol Chak, Dayasagar, Police Station Phalodi, District Phalodi, (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) (Arrested On 02.02.2026) ----Petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (4 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Vaishnavi, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Veerendra Singh and Ms. Jaya Mitra (in CRLMB No. 1158/2026) Mr. Sarfaraz Hyder Khan with Mr. Sumit Kumar Upadhayay, Mr. Mirza Shoaib Ur Rehman (in CRLMB No. 2627/2026) Mr. Prince Pal Singh (in CRLMB No. 3104/2026) Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Prince Pal Singh (in CRLMB-II No. 3105/2026) Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar with Mr. Pradeep Malik (in CRLMB No. 3889/2026, CRLMB No.5103/2026 and CRLMB No. 5782/2026) Mr. Madhav Mitra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Veerendar Singh, Ms. Jaya Mitra (in CRLMB-II No. 4005/2026 and CRLMB No.4632/2026) Mr. Rajat Singh Solanki (in CRLMB-III No.5781/2026) Mr. Sanjay Sharma (in CRLMB No.6448/2026) Mr. Jitendra Choudhary (in CRLMB-II No. 7105/2026) Mr. Tushar Bhatnagar, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Ms. Swetlana Chopra (in CRLMB No.7106/2026) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Spl.PP with Anoop Meena and Akshat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Date of conclusion of arguments : 07/05/2026 Date on which the order was reserved : 07/05/2026 Whether the full order or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Order Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2026 Order [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (5 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] 1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1158/2026 (Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail Application No. 2627/2026 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail Application No. 3104/2026 (Chunaram Vs. State of Rajasthan), 2nd Bail Application No. 3105/2026 (Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan), 2nd Bail Application No.4005/2026 (Harshvardhan Kumar Meena V. State of Rajasthan), Bail Applicatioin No.4632/2026 (Kunal Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan), 3rd Bail Application No.5781/2026 (Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan), 2nd Bail Application No.7105/2026 (Paurav Kaler Vs. State of Rajasthan) and Bail Application No.7106/2026 (Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmalram Vs. The State of Rajasthan) are filed under Section 483 of BNSS in relation to FIR No. 10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS and SOG for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 201, 109 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act of 1992') and under Section 66D of IT Act. 2. S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3889/2026 (Abhay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail Application No. 5103/2026 (Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail Application No. 5782/2026 (Ganpat Ram Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan) and Bail Application No. 6448/2026 (Subhash [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (6 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] Muwal Vs. State of Rajasthan) are filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS in same FIR. 3. Since all these matters pertain to same set of facts and same FIR, therefore we are deciding these bail applications with a common order. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sher Singh submitted that the allegation upon the present petitioner is appearing for himself in the examination of Sub-Inspector on 14th September, 2021 and also appearing as dummy candidate on 13th and 15th September, 2021 on behalf of Mangalaram and Manohar Singh. He submitted that the petitioner was selected, and Mangalaram was not selected but Manohar Singh was selected. He also submitted that both Mangalram and Manohar were granted bail. He also submitted that till date, no FSL report has been filed to show that the present petitioner has impersonated to appear in Sub-Inspector examination. It is also submitted that he is in custody since 25th September 2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Ashok Kumar S/o Jeevanram has submitted that he has appeared as dummy for Kunal Choudhary (petitioner herein) who is also seeking bail. He also submitted that there is no proof of financial involvement as both are friends. He also referred the mention by the agency about the gift of ₹3,00,000/- by Kunal Choudhary to petitioner. He further referred the provision under the Act of 1992 and submitted that the words as used therein clearly shows that no case against the petitioner is made out, to invoke case of unfair means. He [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (7 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] also referred mental illness of the petitioner and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is only for appearing as a dummy on behalf of Kunal Choudhary and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has appeared as dummy. He also submitted that petitioner is arrested on 14th December 2025 and since then he is in custody. 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner Kunal Choudhary has submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner Kunal Choudhary has not appeared as a candidate in sub-inspector examination and he engaged Ashok Kumar to appear on his behalf. He also submitted that there is no financial involvement or dealing. He further submitted that the petitioner has not paid any money even as a gift to Ashok Kumar and the mentioning of SOG is not supported by any document. He also submitted that petitioner is arrested on 13th December 2025 and since then he is in custody. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Chunaram has submitted that the allegation upon the petitioner, is not appearing in the examination rather engaging a dummy, Sohanram. He further submitted that Sohanram has expired and there is no evidence to show that there is any deal between Chunaram and Sohanram. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 13th December 2025 and except the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, no other evidence is available against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh Meena has submitted that the first bail [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (8 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 1st September 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court but his bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and now second bail application is filed only on ground of delay in trial. He also submitted that identically placed Vinod Kumar has been granted bail. He further submitted that even the petitioner was granted bail in another case of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 20th January 2026. He further submitted that in the instant case, Jagdish Vishnoi has named as Kingpin, was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16th January 2026. He further referred bail order in case of Rinku Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and Rajesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan, decided on 5th December 2025 by Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that the prosecution has to examination 150 witnesses and several thousand documents and moreover there are 133 accused. He also submitted that the present petitioner is entitled for bail only on ground that he is in custody since 16.03.2024 and the period of custody is more than two years. 9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner Harshvardhan Kumar Meena has submitted that the present petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024 and the period of custody is more than two years. He also submitted that allegation upon the petitioner is that he is the handler and one of the conspirator. He also submitted that the allegation upon the present petitioner is to engage a dummy candidate [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (9 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] in place of his wife. He also submitted that this petitioner has also filled application for sub-inspector but he did not appeared in the examination. He further referred the circumstances of the case and submitted that even the Brother-in-law of the petitioner has appeared in the examination, but he failed in written examination. He submitted that the circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner was only framed to be a handler as the petitioner was not having any material to supply to his wife and brother-in-law so that they may pass the examination on their own. He also submitted that identically placed Shivratan, Praveen, Suresh Sahu, Suresh Kumar, Jagdish Vishnoi are released on bail and petitioner is seeking bail only on ground of parity. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi has submitted that the present petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2025. He also submitted that the allegation on the petitioner is having friendship with Om Prakash and Virender Kumar, but Virender Kumar was granted bail, whereas investigation in relation to Om Prakash has been stayed by Hon’ble this Court. He also submitted that the SLP preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn, but interim bail was granted to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Paurav Kaler submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 31/05/2024, and the period of custody is more than two years. He also submitted that other accused, including Jagdish Vishnoi, were granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (10 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] the case of the present petitioner is even on better footing than those accused. He further submitted that the trial has not begun, and the charges has not been framed. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ashok Kumar has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02/02/2026, and the allegation on the present petitioner is to appear as a dummy candidate on behalf of Shyampratap, Sharwan Kumar and Madan Lal. He also submitted that three accused Shyampratap, Sharwan and Madan were already granted bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having criminal antecedents, and he is entitled for bail. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Abhay Singh submitted that the allegation for the present petitioner is that he read paper to Priyanka Goswami and Priyanka Goswami was granted bail under Section 438 CrPC by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the present petitioner is involved in the incident. He also submitted that no custodial interrogation is required and the petitioner is ready to cooperate in every manner to SOG. He also submitted that there is no proof of financial involvement and there are no chances of any recovery. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kamlesh Kumar has submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is to appear dummy in place of Ashok Kumar. He also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any of the criminal case and there is no financial involvement of the [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (11 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] petitioner. He also submitted that no recovery is anticipated from the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ganpat Ram Bishnoi has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of reading of paper and nothing more. He also submitted that there is no proof against the petitioner except oral mentioning by co-accused in their statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submitted that without any recovery, statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be read against the petitioner. He also submitted that there is no chance of any recovery from the petitioner and identical placed persons were already granted bail. 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Subhash Muwal submitted that the present petitioner was considered as a suspect on behalf of the statement of Vinod Rewar. He further submitted that neither there is any allegation nor any substantial evidence to show that the present petitioner has involved in any malpractice. He further submitted that the present petitioner was selected as sub-inspector and he has completed training. He further submitted that the arrest will ruin his future. 17. Learned Senior Advocate and learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that several accused were granted bail by this court, Coordinate Bench and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court. They also submitted that since the trial has not begun, therefore, they are entitled for bail. They further submitted that the delay is a good ground to grant them bail. [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (12 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] 18. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of SOG and submitted that the charges against the petitioners are very serious and all related to the Rajasthan Public Service Examination. He further referred the FSL report against Sher Singh, Ashok Kumar, Chunaram, Ashok Kumar son of Jagmalram and submitted that the FSL report is sufficient to show that these petitioners are involved in the incident. He further submitted that some of the accused have approached Hon'ble Supreme Court and they have failed in getting relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that trial Court may be directed to expedite the hearing. 19. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned counsel for the parties and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Also perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgment and the documents referred by learned counsel for the parties. 20. FIR No.10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 was registered at Special Police Station SOG, District ATS and SOG in relation to mass scale rigging, paper leak, and use of unfair means in Sub- Inspector Recruitment Examination 2021. Several bail applications were considered by this Court. We have already decided a bunch of applications wherein lead case was Sharwanram @ Sharwan Babal versus State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 197/2025 decided on 1st September 2025. Admittedly, some of the bail applications were allowed by Hon'ble [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (13 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] Supreme Court and we have considered those orders which are annexed by learned counsel for the petitioners. 21. The details submitted by learned special public prosecutor on behalf of SOG to show the real status of these cases and same are reproduced as under: Accused in Custody (Seeking bail under Section 483 BNSS) Sr. No. Name Date of Arrest SLP, if any Role (as per investigation) 1. Sher Singh 25.09.2025 NIL • Appeared as Dummy Candidate for Mangal Ram and Manohar Singh on 13.9.21 and 15.9.21 respectively. • Struck a deal for Rs.15 Lakhs with Manohar Singh. • Manohar Singh was selected at S.No.171 in the Merit list whereas Manglaram failed in Physical Test. • FSL reports available. 2. Ashok Kumar S/o Jeevanram 14.12.2025 NIL • Appeared as a dummy candidate for Kunal Chaudhry. • Struck a deal for Rs. 3 Lakhs after selection. • FSL reports available. 3. Chunaram 13.12.2025 NIL • Sohanram appeared as dummy candidate for Chunaram. • Struck deal for Rs.10 Lakhs. • Merit rank of Chunaram was 251. • FSL report available. 4. Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh 16.03.2024 SLP (Crl.) No. 15758/2025 rejected vide orderdated 17.10.2025 • Paper leak syndicate Member. • Deal with Ashok Nathawat for Rs.15 Lakhs. • Deal with Bhupendra Sarang for Rs.25 Lakhs. • Deal with Vinod Rewar for Rs.10 Lakhs. • 5 Criminal Cases of similar nature registered in the past. 5. Harshvardh an Kumar Meena 06.03.2024 SLP (Crl.) No. 18130/2025 Rejected vide order dt. 22.01.2026 • Handler & Paper leak Gang Member. • Obtained exam paper from Jagdish Vishnoi and circulated through other accused persons. • Struck deal for Rs.20 Lakhs with other accused. 6. Kunal Chaudhary 13.12.2025 NIL • Ashok Kumar appeared as dummy candidate for Kunal Chaudhary. [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (14 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] • Deal done for Rs.3Lakhs. • Merit Rank was 234. 7. Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi 02.05.2025 SLP (Crl.) No.20001/2025 Rejected vide order dated 11.03.2026 • Provided dummy candidate for Virender Meena and Sameta Kumari. • Struck deal for Rs.28 Lakhs for both. • 3 Criminal Cases of similar nature registered in the past. 8. Paurav Kaler 31.05.2024 SLP (Crl.) No. 18274/2025 Rejected vide order dt. 21.01.2026 • Kingpin of the syndicate. • Hatched a conspiracy, as a result, Rajaram @ Raju Matrix entered the office of school, took photographs of papers and sent to Paurav Kaler and Tulchharam on mobile phone who shared them with handlers and other accused persons in lieu of money. • Tulchharam's SLP No.15251/25 rejected vide order 21.01.2026. • Paurav Kaler and other gang members helpedthe following candidates to solve the paper through bile tooth for a hefty amount: 1. Prabha Bishnoi 2. Ankita Godara 3. Manisha Sihag 4. Babita 5. Nirma 6. Monika 7. Surendra Jat 8. Manoj 9. Jairaj Singh 10. Manish Beniwal 11. Raghuvir Charan • 8 other Criminal cases of similar nature registered in the past. 9. Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmal Ram 02.02.2026 NIL • Appeared as dummy candidates for 3 aspirants namely Shyam Pratap (for Rs. 20 Lacs), Madan Lal (for Rs.5 Lacs) and Sharwan Kumar Godara (for Rs.10 Lacs). • Was delcared absconding & a reward of Rs.50,000/- was declared by the police in his name and thereafter, he was arrested. • FSL reports available. [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (15 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] Accused seeking pre-arrest bail (482 BNSS) Sr. No. Name Role (As per investigation) 1. Abhay Singh • Purchased paper from Bhupendra Saran, who was a syndicate member. • Selected at Merit Rank 7. • Filed SB Crl. Misc. Petition No. 228/2025 wherein he was directed to join investigation, but he has not joined investigation till date. • Custodial interrogation required. 2. Kamlesh Kumar • Appeared as a dummy candidate for Ashok Kumar. • Merit Rank of Ashok Kumar : 154. • Struck a deal for Rs. 10 Lakhs. • Custodial interrogation required. 3. Ganpatram • Purchased paper from Bhupendra Saran who was a syndicate member. • Filed SB Crl. Misc. Petition 9376/2024 wherein he was directed to join investigation, but he has not joined investigation till date. • Custodial interrogation required. 4. Subhash Muwal • Struck a deal for Rs.8 Lakhs with gang mamber Vinod Rewar for purchasing the paper. • Secured Merit Rank 125. • Custodial interrogation required. 22. A Medical certificate is filed on behalf of Ashok Kumar son of Jeevanram, to show his mental condition, wherein it has been mentioned that he is having panic attacks and we have gone through the records submitted on the record. Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail in cases of Hanumanram vs. State of Rajasthan (order dated 23.02.2026), Purushottam Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan (order dated 23.03.2026), Anil Kumar @ Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (order dated 29.04.2026) and Priyanka Goswami Vs. State of Rajasthan (order dated 12.01.2026). 23. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail in case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan on 10.04.2026, Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan on 25.03.2026, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan on 08.01.2026, [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (16 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] Harshvardhan Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan on 18.12.2024 and Paurav Kaler Vs. State of Rajasthan on 08.04.2026, in other cases as well against some of the petitioners. 24. In the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of Maharashtra : SLP (Criminal) No.7502/2026, Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused wherein in past four years not a single witness has been examined. In case of Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7, a bail was granted where there were 208 witnesses cited and 63 thousand pages of documents were filed. In case of Javed Gulam nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another : Criminal Appeal No.2787/2024 (order dated 3/7/2024), the bail is granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court to an accused charged under under the UAPA Act. 25. We have considered all these judgments and we are also conscious about the fact that some of the accused are in custody for last almost two years. The materials indicate that the pace of trial is very slow and the trial Court is not able to expedite the hearing. 26. Out of these 13 bail applications, four accused are seeking anticipatory bail under section 482 of the BNSS. This court has considered the principle regarding grant of bail in case of Sharwanram @ Sharwan Babal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). The material on record indicates that there were FSL reports against some of the accused, and other material against some of them. There were charges that they have [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (17 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] not appeared in the examination, rather, the dummy candidate were engaged, who have appeared. In some of the cases, SLP has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court after dismissal of first bail application by this Court. 27. The material clearly indicate role and involvement of these petitioners, therefore, considering their role and involvement, the petitioners are not entitled to get bail on merits. We have taken note of the period of custody before granting bail on ground of period of custody, it is appropriate to direct the trial court to record the statement of at least material witnesses. 28. In case of Zeba Khan Vs. State of UP reported as 2026 INSC 144, while considering the bail application in a case where there was forgery and falsification of record, Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court. 29. Herein, the entire examination of Sub-Inspector recruitment was scrapped as there was mass scale rigging and paper leak. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners accused on any of the ground mentioned by learned Senior Advocate and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-accused. 30. Considering role and involvement of all four accused Abhay Singh, Kamlesh Kumar, Ganpatram and Subhash Muwal, they are not entitled for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS. 31. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima [2026:RJ-JP:21859] (18 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026] facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicants in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to grant bail the applicants accused. 32. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail applications of the applicant accused at this stage. 33. Accordingly, bail applications under Section 483 BNSS preferred by the accused petitioners Sher Singh, Ashok Kumar S/o Jeevanam, Chunaram, Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh Meena, Harshvardhan Kumar Meena, Kunal Chaudhary, Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi, Paurav Kaler and Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmal Ram are hereby dismissed. 34. The bail applications under Section 482 BNSS preferred by the accused petitioners Abhay Singh, Kamlesh Kumar, Ganpatram Bishnoi and Subhash Muwal, are hereby dismissed. 35. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and fix the case on day to day basis without any adjournment. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 6 to 18/MR