State of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Shreya Hatila HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 27/02/2025 Order

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.10/2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (S.O.G.) Jaipur, District A.T.S. and S.O.G. for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 & 120B of IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66D of I.T. Act.

4. Heard. Considered the materials made available on record. The allegations against the petitioner is that in connivance with the other co-accused namely; Unike Bhambhu and Rajesh Khandelwal, who are the real culprits of leaking the question paper for the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector 2021, he [2025:RJ-JP:8734] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024] was assigned the duty by Rajesh Khandelwal at the room where the question papers were kept before commencement of the written examination.

5. In view of the aforesaid allegations, the accused-petitioner has been implicated in a case punishable for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 408, 409, 201 & 109 read with Section 34 & 120B of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Exams (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66D of I.T. Act.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is neither anything on record nor any evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency as regard the assigning of duty to the petitioner by any of the co-accused at the place where question papers were kept prior to commencement of the examination. Counsel further submits that the duties at the place where question papers were kept, were assigned under the instructions of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He has placed on record the details of the persons who were deputed at the examination centre that is Ravindra Bal Bharti Senior Secondary School, Shantinagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. The said details do not find the name of the accused- petitioner, which speaks that the petitioner was never assigned any duty and the allegation against him are false and fabricated.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no evidence as regards the transaction of money in between the petitioner and the other co-accused. He further submitted that no any relative of the petitioner had appeared in the said S.I. Recruitment Examination and nothing is said to have [2025:RJ-JP:8734] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024] been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused-petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the accused- petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of the information sought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from the co-accused and the petitioner. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as per the instructions of the RPSC, the videography of the entry gate of the room where the question papers were kept prior to commencement of the examination was conducted but, no any such videography has been placed on record or collected as an evidence during investigation so that it can be ascertained whether the petitioner performed any kind of duty at that place. Counsel also submitted that the accused- petitioner is a Government employee and Police after completion of investigation has submitted the charge-sheet and he is no more required for any kind of interrogation and there is no chance of his absconding. Counsel further submitted that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024.

8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Anurag Sharma with Ms. Shreya Hatila submitted that the information of co-accused namely; Rajesh Khandelwal sought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act discloses the involvement of the accused-petitioner in commission of the offence that is leaking the paper. He further submits that the co-accused Rajesh Khandelwal has stated that the main culprit of the matter that is Unike Bhambhu introduced the petitioner to him and asked him to assign the duty and kept question papers prior to commencement of the examination. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the accused-petitioner has also identified the place where he was [2025:RJ-JP:8734] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024] introduced by Unike Bhambhu to Rajesh Khandelwal for assigning the duty. He further submitted that in the last two years it has come out that the accused-petitioner was in connection with the main accused Unike Bhambhu, which is revealed from the call details.

9. On consideration of the submissions and scrutiny of the evidence collected during investigation, the Court finds that the only evidence which the Investigating Agency has shown is the information sought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from co- accused Rajesh Khandelwal and the present petitioner and so also the call details as regards the connectivity of the accused- petitioner with the co-accused Unike Bhambhu i.e. of period post exam.

10. As per the instructions of the RPSC, the persons were deputed at the examination centres, including at rooms where the question papers were kept prior to commencement of the examination. As per the details placed before this Court, there is no evidence as regards the assigning any duty to the petitioner at the examination centre.

11. As per the instructions of the RPSC, the videography was to be conducted at the entry gate of the room where the question papers were kept before commencement of the examination but, no such videography has been collected by the Investigating Agency or forwarded to the Investigation Agency by the RPSC so that it could be ascertained whether the accused-petitioner was actually present at the examination centre from where the question papers got leaked. The Police after completion of [2025:RJ-JP:8734] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024] investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter and the accused-petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024.

12. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

13. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. DIVYA SAINI /24 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J