BAIL APPLICATION No. 13597 of 2025 · Rajasthan High Court

: Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/10/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.30/2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS and SOG (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC & Sections 3, 6, 7 & 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the petitioner, charges have been framed and two witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner that he sent some other person namely Sirdaram on his behalf to appear in the examination of School Lecturer. Counsel submits that the said person has not been arrested till date despite the fact that he is a [2025:RJ-JP:43688] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13597/2025] Government Servant. It is also contended that in respect of same recruitment several FIRs have been registered wherein accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that he got employment as he sent another person who appeared on his behalf in the examination.

I have considered the contentions. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, as also looking to the fact that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents and custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Viplesh Kumar S/o Shri Birbalram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only), out of which one must be given by his family member or close relative, each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all [2025:RJ-JP:43688] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13597/2025] subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial court and investigating agency and shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and may not switch off for a longer period intentionally.

Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN /10 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J