Dismissed

Sumit Kumar S/O Shri Shubash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2025CRLMB/2135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six accused in an SOG FIR concerning fake B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. degrees used to obtain government PTI jobs sought bail, citing illegal arrest grounds and co-accused bail grants. Considering their alleged roles, criminal antecedents and precedent on arrest warrants, the single judge dismissed all six bail applications and directed SOG to comply with grounds-of-arrest obligations.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted to any of the six applicants; copy of order sent to ADG, SOG for compliance.

Sumit Kumar S/O Shri Shubash Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2033/2025

¶4

Suman Bhari D/o Harisingh, Aged About 34 Years, Residing At Ganeshpura Baas, Ward No. 36, Bhadra District Hanumangarh, Presently Residing At W/o Mandeep Kumar, R/o Ward No. 14, Gali No. 01, Pilani Road, Durga Colony, Rajgarh, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, Presently Third Grade Physical Teacher, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Soniyana, Block Railmagra, Distirct Rajsamand (Rajasthan) (Presently Accused Petitioner Is 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. 2135/2025 Sumit Kumar S/o Shri Shubash, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Butana Kundu, Police Station Baroda, District Sonipat, Haryana. (Presently Accused- Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur.)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2452/2025 Ganga Singh S/o Shri Radhakishan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Inana, Police Station Mundawa, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan Currently Posted As A Pti At Government Upper Primary School, Mirjas, Block - Mundwa, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5400/2025 Subhash Chandra S/o Shri Gurudayal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Berasar Gumana, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu,

(2 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶25

----Petitioner

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8782/2025 Sukesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Mehra Colony, Behind Roadways Bus Stand, Shikohabad, Police Station Kotwali, Sikhohabad, District Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶33

----Respondent

¶34

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9781/2025 Babulal @ Babu Patel @ B L Patel S/o Shri Natharam, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Patel Krishi Farm, Banganga, Ward No. 1, Bilada, Police Station Choupasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur, At Present Working Teacher, Government Senior Secondary School, Talawada, Block Luni, District Jodhpur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶38

----Respondent

¶39

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankur Shukla (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2033/2025) Mr. Deepak Chauhan assisted by Mr. Ashok Choudhary & Mr. Rajender Singh Rajawat (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2135/2025) Mr. Prakash Lamba (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2452/2025)
	Mr. Nishant Khatri (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8782/2025)

¶40

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]	(3 of 17) [CRLMB-2033/2025] Mr. Puneet Jangu (Through VC) assisted by Mr. Arvind Bhadu (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9781/2025) Mr. Hitesh Jain Rana, Mr. Tushar Bhatnagar (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5400/2025)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary GA-cum-AAG Mr. Dharma Ram Additional SP SOG (IO)

¶41

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶42

Order

¶43

05/08/2025

¶44

These bail applications were preferred by the petitionersaccused Suman Bhari D/o Harisingh, Sumit Kumar S/o Shri Shubash, Ganga Singh S/o Shri Radhakishan, Subhash Chandra S/o Shri Gurudayal, Sukesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Singh, Babulal @ Babu Patel @ B L Patel S/o Shri Natharam, in a matter arising out of FIR No.13/2024 dated 08.04.2024 registered at Police Station SOG Jaipur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 66D of IT Act, 2008.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by SOG. They further submitted that the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has already been filed and these petitioners are no more required for further investigation and no purpose will be served by keeping them in custody. They further submitted

(4 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

that the petitioners are in custody since their arrest and the SOG has filed a long list of witnesses and the same will require long time for trial. They further submitted that the offences are triable by Magistrate of First Class.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner Suman Bhari submitted that the petitioner accused is not appointed in the sports quota rather after verification of documents she was given regular appointment and during verification nowhere it was found that the B.P.Ed degree was obtained in back date without undergoing the course at concerned University. He further submitted that the allegation on present petitioner is that she has not submitted her migration certificate. He further submitted that the allegation upon present petitioner is that after conspiracy with her husband Mandeep, she obtained a fake degree from J.S. University, Shikohbad (UP). He further submitted that Mandeep was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioner accused is mother of two daughters.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner accused Sumit Kumar has submitted that the petitioner accused is working as an accountant in OPJS University and he is nowhere involved in any manner as he is a paid employee. He further submitted that the job of present petitioner was to maintain accounts and on basis of income and expenditure his duty was to maintain correct account of said transactions. He further submitted that from the accounts book nowhere it was found that excessive or illegal income was added to the accounts of

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

(5 of 17)

OPJS University. He also submitted that the petitioner accused has not misused or converted to his own use the money received in accounts of OPJS University. He further submitted that the story framed by the SOG is purely concocted and without mentioning of any specific gain for his own use by the petitioner accused, who cannot be arrayed as an accused only on the ground that he was working in OPJS University. He further submitted that the petitioner accused is not a beneficiary rather bald allegations were made against him. He further referred disclosure made under Section 27 of Evidence Act and submitted that there is no recovery except recovery of data in pen drive and it is not possible that entire data is kept in removable pen drive.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ganga Singh has submitted that the present petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor a person who issued forged B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. Degrees or mark-sheet. He further submitted that neither there is any transaction nor any recovery and he has been named without any evidence. He further submitted that none of 9 persons named was given job and none of them were successful in PTI Examination on basis of said degrees. He further submitted that without connecting evidence, the petitioner accused cannot be framed but he has been named only on basis of information of co-accused.

¶57

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner accused Subhash Chandra has submitted that he is an innocent person and without disclosing reasons of arrest, he

(6 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

has been arrested by SOG. He further submitted that the petitioner-accused is neither a beneficiary nor the person who received money from any beneficiary but he has been arrayed as an accused only on ground that he has assisted some persons in procuring fake degrees.

¶62

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner accused Babu Lal has submitted that the petitioner accused is a Government Teacher and he has no contact and connect with any organized racket or group, indulged in providing fake and forged degrees. He further submitted that this petitioner accused is not named in FIR and his role and involvement is not proved. He further submitted that even the petitioner accused is not connected with any student. He further submitted that present petitioner accused has joined the investigation and nothing was found against him. He also referred material collected by SOG and submitted that the allegation upon the present petitioner is ‘involvement with an organized gang’ but there is no evidence on record to show involvement of present petitioner. He further submitted that not a single degree was found as fake and false and SOG has not able to prove that the degree was fake and false.

¶63

Learned counsel appearing for Sukesh Kumar has submitted that the petitioner accused was working as Chancellor of J.S. University, Shikohbad (UP) and he is not having direct or indirect role in financial or administrative matter. He further submitted that if a student was admitted by the

(7 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

administration, then information is not provided to the petitioner accused in ordinary course of nature. He also submitted that the University has a financial controller and all accounts are maintained as per accounting practice prevalent under the law. He further submitted that it is not possible for Chancellor to know and meet each and every student who is seeking a degree from University. He further submitted that unless role and involvement is proved, it is not possible that the petitioner-accused be forwarded with charge-sheet to face trial. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that any money is syphoned by the petitioner accused.

¶68

Learned counsel has further referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly in case of Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana : 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and submitted that the petitioner accused is not informed of ground of arrest when he was intercepted from the airport. He also submitted that petitioner accused was detained at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and was brought without any orders from any Court to Jaipur where he was arrested. He submitted that the fundamental rights as protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in series of judgments were violated by SOG, therefore, the arrest of petitioner accused is illegal and he is entitled to be released on bail. He further referred his written submission alongwith LOC issued to authority at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioners have

(8 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

referred judgment dated 03.04.2025 in a bunch of petitions titled as Yashwant Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.2328/2025 and submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench has directed constitution of a committee for verification of documents and set out certain guidelines. They further submitted that unless the same is not verified by the Committee, no criminal action can be initiated against any person. They also referred order dated 18.09.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2156/2020 : Ajay Singh Dhayal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors . He further referred order dated 01.08.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6271/2025 : Dhara Singh Gurjar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr . and submitted the arrest of petitioners in FIR No.37/2025 registered at PS SOG was stayed.

¶73

Learned counsel further referred order in case of Pramjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan: SLP (Crl.) No.9413/2025 (Order dated 01.07.2025), Mandeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan : SLP (Crl.) No.9324/2025 (Order dated 01.07.2025) and submitted that co-accused were already released on bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also referred bail order dated 17.08.2023 in Bail Application No.228/2023 : Gaurav Chand Vs. State of Uttarakhand passed a Co-ordinate Bench of uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. Learned counsels have submitted that on basis of period of custody and possible delay in trial, the accused are entitled to be released on bail.

(9 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sukesh Kumar has referred and placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2024) 8 SCC 254, Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh, Criminal Appeal No.1518/2025, Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. : Criminal Appeal No.2808/2025, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, SLP (Crim.) No.1136/2023, Gangan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Application No. 73/2025 (Delhi High Court), Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M16156/2025 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), Anwar Dhebar Vs. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12507/2024 (Allahabad High Court), Vimal Kishore Mehrotra Vs. State of UP : AIR 1956 ALL 56 (Allahabad High Court), Raghuvash Dewachand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.1758/2011 (Supreme Court Case), Mahendra Kumar Shukla Vs. State of MP : Criminal Appeal No.657/2020 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) and Ghanshyam Patel @ Lallu Vs. State of MP : Criminal Revision No.3829/2018 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) .

¶78

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG and he submitted that all these petitioners are part of a syndicate and organized crime who involved in procuring and issuing fake and false degrees to candidates to procure government

(10 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

job on basis of said fabricated documents. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of the State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh and Ors. : 2025 INSC 341 wherein bail granted to Indraj Singh and Salman Khan in FIR No.9/2024 registered at PS-Special Police Station (SOG) was under challenged and grant of bail by this Hon’ble Court was cancelled by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further referred report received from SOG and submitted that the role and involvement of each and every individual is well explained along with criminal antecedents. He also submitted that in case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of AndhraPradesh and Ors. : 2025 INSC 768 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered judgment in case of Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) and held that when a person is arrested in pursuance to warrant of arrest issued by any Court, then the warrant of arrest itself is reason of arrest and there is no need to communicate reasons of arrest separately.

¶83

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AAG along with Investigating Officer, present in person. Also perused the material available on record along with judgments as referred by learned counsels of both the sides.

¶84

On basis of an information about selection of candidate possessing fake and false degrees of B.P.Ed and D.P.Ed. in P.T.I. Direct Recruitment Examination 2022, the SOG has investigated the matter and during investigation found

(11 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

involvement of large number of persons and collected the material against said persons. On earlier occasion, the bail application of seven persons were rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench and after arrest of present petitioners-accused the role and involvement is found and the report has been submitted.

¶89

As per material available on record, Suman Bhari is arrested on 14.12.2024, Ganga Singh arrested on 17.12.2024, Sumit Kumar arrested on 12.01.2025, Sukesh Kumar arrested on 07.03.2025, Subhash Chandra arrested on 10.04.2024 and Babu Lal arrested on 17.05.2025 which indicate that except Subhash Chandra, the custody period of other petitioners is less than 8 months. Except Babu Lal, a charge-sheet has been filed against all persons. The petitioners accused were charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC along with Section 66D of IT Act.

¶90

In case of Pramjeet Singh (supra) and Mandeep Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after dismissal of bail order by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and we have perused the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. We have also considered order dated 01.08.2025 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.6271/2025 whereby a co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur has stayed arrest of 40 candidates in connection with the FIR No.37/2025 registered at SOG. We have also considered order dated 18.09.2021 in writ petition filed by Ajay Singh Dhayal against State of Rajasthan which is based on judgment dated 05.03.2020 in case of Saroj

(12 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ

¶95

Petition No.2025/2020 . We have also considered judgment in case of Writ Petition No.2328/2025 : Yashwant Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (Order dated 03.04.2025). In Writ Petition filed by Yashwant and Ors., the degrees and certificates issued by OPJS University, Churu were in question and a Co-ordinate Bench has directed for constitution of a Committee to ascertain genuineness of the documents.

¶96

Here in this case, the role and involvement of Suman Bhari as a candidate is alleged by SOG and specific evidence is collected to show that the petitioner accused Suman Bhari has procured a fake and false degree from J.S. University, Shikohbad (UP) without actually studying the course. The petitioner accused Sumit Kumar was working as an accountant but he was involved in maintaining data on excel sheet wherein he has an option to add name of beneficiary and their details so as to enable them to procure degree from OPJS University. His involvement is proved with Subash Poonia and others. The SOG has pointed out involvement of Ganga Singh with main accused Joginder Singh whose bail was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench and he has been involved in procuring degree to 22 students in connivance with Joginder Singh and Raman Nandal. Three criminal cases were registered against him and all were disposed of.

¶97

Accused Subhash Singh is one of the king pin involved in fake degree racket with other persons. The SOG has found

(13 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

his role and involvement with Pradeep Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and others. His son Paramjeet was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court but having considering his role and involvement, the SOG has listed him as one of the mastermind behind the entire fake degree of operational racket.

¶102

Babu Lal @ Babu Patel @ B.L. Patel was named by coaccused Pradeep Kumar Sharma and on basis of information collected from hard disc of computer recovered at the instance of Pradeep Kumar Sharma, it was found that 62 students were assisted and helped by present petitioner Babu Lal in procuring degree of different degree course. The present petitioner accused is also involved in similar nature of case related to Mewar University, District Chittorgarh and two FIR Nos.100/2024 and 101/2024 were registered at PS Civil Lines, Ajmer wherein investigation is in progress.

¶103

Accused Sukesh Kumar is Chancellor of J.S. University, Shikohbad (UP) and the material collected by SOG indicate that 7 criminal cases were registered against him wherein 3 at SOG Jaipur of identical nature. The investigation of SOG suggested that some of the candidates who appeared and were successful in PTI Direct Recruitment Examination 2022 have procured B.P.Ed. degree from J.S. University, Shikohbad (UP) wherein the petitioner accused is Chancellor. The SOG has collected evidence to show role and involvement of present petitioner in the racket in issuance of

(14 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

degrees in back date to some of the successful candidates so that they may procure job of PTI in said public examination.

¶108

A LOC was issued against the petitioner accused Sukesh Kumar and same was sent to AFRROBOI, New Delhi on 07.03.2024 and in pursuant to this LOC, the present petitioner accused Sukesh Kumar who was proceeding for Hanoi (Vietnam) by flight No. VJ972 was detained on 06.03.2025 at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner accused was arrested on 07.03.2025 at 09:45 AM at SOG Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶109

Aforementioned clearly indicate that the petitioner accused Sukesh Kumar was detained at IGI Airport, New Delhi and was brought to Jaipur without any transit remand from any Court at Delhi.

¶110

In case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and further in most of the cases as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the importance of communication of grounds of arrest in clear and unambiguous words. The protection is to ensure compliance of legal provision and also to protect constitutional rights of petitioner accused. Herein, instead of arrest or interrogation at Delhi, the petitioner accused was brought to Jaipur and at Jaipur he was arrested.

¶111

The material on record indicate that the SOG has obtained a warrant of arrest under Section 37 of Police Act against sukesh Kumar and in pursuance to the warrant of arrest, a LOC was issued and the petitioner accused was detained

(15 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

while leaving the country. In case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) after considering the judgment of Vihaan Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that if a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is a warrant itself, if the warrant is read over to him i.e. sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed about the ground of his arrest.

¶116

Having considered aforesaid legal position and also the material on record, I am of considered view that the arrest of petitioner accused Sukesh Kumar cannot be terms as illegal as a warrant has already been issued by the Court at Jaipur before detention of petitioner accused at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Therefore, the submissions of learned counsel are not helpful.

¶117

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to Inderaj Singh and Salman Khan in FIR No.9/2024 dated 28.02.2024 registered at PS SOG in a matter relating to use of unfair means and mass scale cheating in Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Autonomous Government Department) Competitive Examination, 2022 and on appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan, Hon’ble Supreme Court has cancelled the order of bail granted to Inderaj Singh and Salman Khan. Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred judgment in case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem : (2024) 10 SCC 768 for consideration of bail along with other principles.

¶118

Having considered totality and facts and circumstances of case, particularly, material available on record, I am of

(16 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

considered view that at this stage it is not possible to deal in detail the evidence available on record but material on record is sufficiently indicate role and involvement of present petitioners, therefore, none of the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail including Subhash Chandra who is in custody for more than one year as Subhash Chandra is one of the mastermind behind the entire scam.

¶123

In view of discussion made hereinabove, the bail application preferred by the petitioners accused Suman Bhari D/o Harisingh, Sumit Kumar S/o Shri Shubash, Ganga Singh S/o Shri Radhakishan, Subhash Chandra S/o Shri Gurudayal, Sukesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Singh and Babulal @ Babu Patel @ B L Patel S/o Shri Natharam are hereby dismissed.

¶124

Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to point out that the legal position as considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and further in case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and also in case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the SOG is under legal obligation to inform the grounds of arrest by detailing the facts to the accused, which are the basis of his arrest. The responsibility and obligation is on the police officer who has directed arrest and also who is implementing an order of arrest. Similarly, when a warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act is issued by any Court then it is necessary that the Court is satisfied from the grounds of arrest as mentioned in the application and also in the diary. Without statutory

(17 of 17)

[2025:RJ-JP:34877]

[CRLMB-2033/2025]

compliance, a person should not be subjected to arrest by any agency, as a citizen of the country is entitled for protection under the law.

¶129