Hanumanaram S/O Shri Kaushlaram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10599/2025

Hanumanaram S/o Shri Kaushlaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bisaraniya, Police Station Dhanau, Distt. Barmer, Rajasthan, Currently Sub Divisional Officer (Sdm), Sub Division, Fatehgarh, Distt. Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10600/2025 Praveen Kumar S/o Ghewarram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dungarva Tehsil And Police Station Bagoda, District Jalore At Present Patwari, Naini Bai Ka Mandir, Settlement Department, Jodhpur (Raj.) At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vedant Sharma
	Mr. Vaibhav Sharma
	Mr. Tushar Bhatnagar
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Arti Sharma,PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶17

Order

¶18

22/08/2025

¶19

These applications for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicants-accused Hanumanaram S/o Shri Kaushlaram and Praveen Kumar S/o Ghewarram in FIR No. 85/2024 dated 04.12.2024 registered at P.S. SOG Jaipur

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

[CRLMB-10599/2025]

(2 of 7)

whereby the applicants-accused were charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Rajasthan Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.

¶24

The applicants were arrested and are in judicial custody since their arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants relying upon grounds raised in bail applications submits that the applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Further, they submits that the investigation relating to present applicants-accused is complete and are no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He also submits that the trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicants-accused in custody.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner Hanumanaram submitted that petitioner was serving as SDO in RAS Cadre at the time of arrest and a charge-sheet has been filed against him. He further submitted that some other cases were reported against the petitioner but role and involvement of petitioner is not proved from the material available on record. He further submitted that as per facts of the case, this petitioner was engaged by Ramniwas Vishnoi (middle man) to appear as a dummy candidate on behalf of Praveen Kumar in Patwari Recruitment Examination, 2021 and for appearing as dummy candidate, this petitioner is allegedly paid by Ramniwas. He further submitted that Ramniwas has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on 12.08.2025. He also

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

[CRLMB-10599/2025]

(3 of 7)

submitted that except FSL report, there is no other material on record to show that petitioner has appeared as a dummy candidate on behalf of co-accused Praveen Kumar. He also submitted that there is no call logs between petitioner and Praveen Kumar rather present petitioner and Praveen are not known to each other. He also referred UPI transaction and submitted that financial transaction is not a legal evidence to show that money is transacted for appearance as a candidate in said examination. He further submitted that the allegations are baseless and same is not proved from any cogent evidence and without any legal evidence, present petitioner cannot be tried as an accused. He further submitted that any information recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act (corresponding section 23 of BSA) is not admissible unless same is supported with well proved recovery. He further submitted that the examination is conducted on 24.10.2021 whereas call logs (CDR) is collected and submitted from 22.04.2023 and 21.04.2025 to show that Hanumanaram and Ramniwas were connected with each other. He further submitted that UPI transaction from 11.07.2021 to 09.12.2022, total in number 20 are not sufficient to show role and involvement of present petitioner. He also submitted that in identical case of Girdhariram Vs.

¶31

State of Rajasthan (SLP (Criminal) No.7461/2025) Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on 23.06.2025.

¶32

Learned counsel has further submitted that FIR is registered after a delay of more than 3 years under the old law and present petitioner is not named in the FIR. He further

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

[CRLMB-10599/2025]

(4 of 7)

submitted that present petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed without any legal evidence. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that ₹7 lacs were transacted between petitioner and Ramniwas.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioner Praveen Kumar has submitted that present petitioner was a candidate in Patwari Recruitment Examination, 2021 and he is not having any connection with Hanumanaram. He also submitted that there is no FSL report against the petitioner to show that present petitioner has not appeared as a candidate. He also submitted that no call logs between present petitioner and Hanumanaram or with Ramniwas, filed on record. He further submitted that no link has been established to show that petitioner has paid ₹7 lacs to Ramniwas to engage Hanumanaram. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner is engaged in any commercial racket or group of persons in paper leak or cheating scams. At last, he submitted that SOG has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and petitioner is in custody but having no criminal antecedents.

¶38

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the applicants-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

¶40

On the basis of complaint received by SOG on helpline the matter is inquired and during inquiry it was found that

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

[CRLMB-10599/2025]

(5 of 7)

Praveen Kumar, who was a candidate in Patwari Recruitment Examination, 2021 has not appeared himself in the examination rather he engaged a dummy candidate (Hanumanaram) and a dummy candidate has appeared by impersonating himself as Praveen Kumar. After registration of FIR, the matter is investigated and during investigation, it has been found that Hanumanaram (RAS) is engaged on payment of ₹7 lacs through middle man Ramniwas to appear as dummy candidate on behalf of Praveen Kumar. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Hanumanram, Ramniwas and Praveen Kumar under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992.

¶45

Co-accused Ramniwas was already granted bail by this Court on 12.08.2025. There was one more case against Ramniwas registered as FIR No.10/2024 at P.S. SOG, Jaipur. There is no criminal case against Praveen Kumar. As per evidence collected so far Praveen Kumar has not appeared as a candidate in aforementioned recruitment exam for Patwari but he has been selected as Hanumanaram has appeared as dummy candidate. The UPI transaction and CDR details is between Hanumanaram and Ramniwas but there is no transaction detail or CDR or call logs between Praveen Kumar and Hanumanaram or Praveen Kumar and Ramniwas. The only evidence of payment is an information under Section 23 of BSA recorded by Praveen to the Investigating Officer that he has paid ₹10 lacs to Ramniwas to engage

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

[CRLMB-10599/2025]

(6 of 7)

Hanumanram as a dummy candidate. It is not possible for us to consider sufficiency of evidence at this stage but the material on record indicated that FSL report is against Hanumanaram who is also working as a RAS officer as he was selected as RAS in 2018. In case of Girdhariram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Girdhari, who was in custody since 18.04.2024 and also charged with impersonation.

¶50

In the instant Hanumanaram is a RAS officer and he is well aware about his duties and obligations as public servant and it appears that he appeared as a dummy candidate after receiving a gratification through Ramniwas Vishnoi therefore in view of his role and involvement and also the material collected during investigation, I am of considered view that he is not entitled to be released on bail but as regard to Praveen Kumar is concerned, he is not indulged in any organized network or with group of individuals in paper leak or other related matters though he allegedly paid ₹10 lacs to Ramniwas for engaging a dummy candidate and except statement under Section 23(2) of BSA, there is no material against the petitioner. The middle man Ramniwas is already granted bail by this Court on 12.08.2025.

¶51

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner Praveen is entitled to be released on bail but he will not be entitled to claim his job as Patwari till disposal of criminal case. The government is at liberty to take action against the petitioner for procuring job by unfair

(7 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:33727]

[CRLMB-10599/2025]

means, if already not initiated so far but Hanumanaram is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶56

Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicantaccused Praveen Kumar s/o Ghewarram , is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶57

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶58

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶59

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

¶60

(iv) The petitioner is not entitled to join duty as Patwari, if still in service.

¶61

(v) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

¶62

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.

¶63

The bail application preferred by petitioner Hanumanaram son of Shri Kaushalaram is hereby dismissed.

¶64

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶65

PREETI VALECHA /08-09

Hanumanaram S/O Shri Kaushlaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanaram S/O Shri Kaushlaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Babal S/O Dharmpal Babal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chirag Yadav S/O Rampal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Madalla Shriniwas Son of Shri Venkatshwar Rao, Vs Union of India

Amit Kumar S/O Shravan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajid Khan S/O Jumruddin Vs State of Rajasthan