Dismissed

Hanuman Prasad S/O Gyarsilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2025CRLMB/1428/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second bail application of an accused facing charges of arranging dummy candidates for a recruitment examination, noting that unlike the co-accused in a distinguished precedent, the petitioner had multiple other pending criminal cases indicating bad conduct and that the offense affected public faith in the recruitment process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hanuman Prasad S/O Gyarsilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:26905]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 1428/2025

¶4

Hanuman Prasad S/o Gyarsilal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bilota, P.s. Aligarh, Distt. Tonk, Currently Suspended From Junior Assistant, Department Of Land Resources, Head Office Near Agrasen Circle, Distt. Bhilwara (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In J.c. Distt. Tonk)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, SPP alongwith Ms. Shreya Hatila

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

18/07/2025

¶13

This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 10/2024 registered at Police Station SOG District ATS & SOG (Raj.) for offences under Section 419, 420 & 120B IPC & Section 4, 5 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66D of IT (Amended) Act, 2008.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the allegation against the accused petitioner is of arranging the dummy candidates for appearing in place of original candidates in the examination held in 2021 for the recruitment to the post of Sub-inspector.

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26905]

[CRLMB-1428/2025]

Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits that in the case of Girdhariram, against whom the allegation was that he was the original candidate, though some other dummy candidate appeared in his place in the recruitment examination to the post of Sub-inspector and Girdhariram has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.06.2025 in

¶19

Spl. Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7461/2025 .

¶20

Counsel further submits that the accused petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2024 and in light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girdhariram (supra) , the accused petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Anurag Sharma submits that the allegation against the accused petitioner is of arranging dummy candidates for appearing in the recruitment examination in place of original candidates. The act of the accused petitioner is of such nature that it is a very devastating remark on the recruitment process as the genuine candidates are deprived from being selected. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submits that as many as six other criminal cases are pending against the accused petitioner out of which 3 are of similar nature. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further referred judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh Etc.; SLP (Crl.) Nos.1615616157/2024), decided on 07.03.2025 .

¶22

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record including the status report

(3 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26905]

[CRLMB-1428/2025]

as regards the investigation and the evidence collected during the investigation.

¶27

In the case of Girdhariram (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has extended the benefit of regular bail to the accused therein observing as under:-

¶28

"5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the period undergone and the length of time of the rial will take, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail."

¶29

The allegation against Girdhariram, who has been enlarged on bail, was that he was a dummy candidate who appeared in the recruitment examination in place of original candidate.

¶30

The allegation against the present accused petitioner is of arranging certain dummy candidates and 3 other criminal cases of similar nature are also pending against him, which clearly speaks of his conduct.

¶31

The case of the present accused petitioner is all together different from the case of Girdhariram.

¶32

As far as the co-accused Girdhariram is concerned, who has been enlarged on bail, as per the record no any other criminal case is pending against him, whereas, several other cases are also

¶33

pending against the present accused, details of which are as

¶34

under:-

¶35

Sr. No.	Case No.	Under Sections	Charge-s	heet	Police Station
1.	40/46 13.01.16	365, 392 IPC	383/16	30.0916	Sanganer Jaipur
2.	42/17 17.04.17	341, 323/34 IPC	41/17	26.04.17	Aligarh Tonk
3.	445/18 01.08.18	341, 323 IPC	286/18	21.12.18	Bajaj Nagar
4.	125/21 30.10.21	419, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & 3/4 Examination Act	129/21	24.12.21	Kotwali Kota
5.	348/21 23.10.21	419, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & 3/4, 6 Examination Act	272/21	10.12.21	R K Puram Kota

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26905]

[CRLMB-1428/2025]

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indraj Singh Etc. (supra), cancelled the bail orders passed by the High Court for releasing on bail and observed as under:-

¶40

"Considerations for setting aside bail orders

¶41

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.

¶42

8.4 A recent judgment of this Court in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P from the pen of Vikram Nath J., referred to the above paragraphs of Ajwar (supra) in cancelling the bail granted to certain accused persons in connection with alleged offences under Sections 498A, 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶43

9. Keeping in view the above pronouncements of law, we are of the view that the Trial Court had been correct in denying bail to the respondents herein. Considerations by the High Court of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but the Court while giving

(5 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26905]

[CRLMB-1428/2025]

due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society.

¶48

10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process - with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.

¶49

11. Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent - accused have indeed not committed any crime in law.

¶50

12. We are conscious of the fact that bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily, and we wholeheartedly endorse this view. The view taken hereinabove, however, has been taken keeping in view the overall impact of the alleged acts of the respondent-accused and its effect on society."

¶51

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the

¶52

cases and more particularly the fact that six other cases including 3 of similar nature are pending against the accused petitioner so also the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indraj

(6 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26905]

[CRLMB-1428/2025]

Singh Etc. (supra) , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail.

¶57