Dismissed

Jogendra Singh S/O Shri Omprakash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2025CRLMB/7191/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application by an accused alleged to have issued around 43,000 fake educational qualification certificates through a private university, with five similar FIRs pending. The court found his role graver than that of co-accused granted bail and dismissed the application, while recommending legislative reconsideration of Section 480(6) BNSS.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; second bail application dismissed; copy of order directed to be sent to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India.

Jogendra Singh S/O Shri Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 7191/2025

¶4

Jogendra Singh S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Chidi District Rohtak Haryana At Present R/o 113-B/29 Ram Gopal Colony P.s. Urban State District Rohtak Haryana. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Faziya G. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor Sh. Dhararam Gila, SP, SOG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

17/07/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.13/2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), ATS & SOG for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2024. She further submits that the co-accused, namely, Pramjeet Singh and Mandeep Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide otder dated 01.07.2025 in Criminal Appeal No(s).-----/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

(2 of 8)

No(s).9413/2025) and Criminal Appeal No(s).-----/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).9324/2025) respectively. She further submits that on the ground of parity, the accusedpetitioner also deserves to be released on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the case of the present accusedpetitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. He further submits that there are serious allegations against the accused-petitioner of issuing forged documents related to the educational qualifications and on the basis of which, even numerous candidates sought appointment under Government, who have been lateron discharged from service as their documents of educational qualification said to have been issued by the accused-petitioner were found to be forged and such candidates and their family members are suffering. He also submits that as per the investigation report as many as forty three thousand fake/forged documents related to the educational qualifications have been issued by the accusedpetitioner in collusion with some other the co-accused.

¶20

He also submits that as regards the co-accused, namely, Pramjeet Singh and Mandeep Kumar who have been enlarged on bail, there is no allegation against them for issuing fake certificates.

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

(3 of 8)

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

¶25

This Court vide its judgment dated 28.01.2025 has dismissed the bail application by detailed order specifying the act of each of the co-accused including the present accusedpetitioner. Since the allegation against the present accusedpetitioner are of serious and grave nature i.e. issuing the fake/forged educational qualification certificates about 43000 (forty three thousand) in number to the unemployed persons and has accumulated huge money for own pleasure. It has also come on record that large number of the candidates who after participating in the recruitment process have sought appointment under the State Government on various posts on the basis of the forged documents issued by the accusedpetitioner.

¶26

Lateron, during investigation, even the certificates were found to be fake and they have been dismissed from service which resulted into great hardships to those candidates and their family members. It has also come on record that five other criminal cases of similar nature have been registered and pending against the present accused-petitioner.

¶27

Looking to the facts of this case and the criminal act of the accused-petitioner and the manner in which he has committed the offence and taking into consideration the other surrounding circumstances, there is possibility that in case

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

(4 of 8)

the accused-petitioner is released on bail, he would tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Though, the offences alleged against accused-petitioner are triable by the Magistrate but for the offences as alleged against him under Sections 467, 468 and 471, the punishment provided is imprisonment for life.

¶32

Though, Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023 provides that an accused who is continuing in custody and the trial of the case would not be concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, he should be enlarged on bail.

¶33

The law framers may also revisit the provisions of Section 480(6) of the BNSS for the reasons that certain serious offences have been made to be triable by the Magistrate however, the punishment for such offence is even imprisonment for life, then in such situation there must be some bifurcation for the minor offences of which the punishment is less than three years and the other offences of which the punishment is more the 10 years or imprisonment for life. Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023 requires reconsideration.

¶34

While considering this bail application of the co-accusedPradeep Kumar Sharma, this Court has also gone though the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

(5 of 8)

Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No.818/2025) decided on 18.02.2025 and so also the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat wherein, it has been observed that the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. corresponding Section 480(6) of the BNSS are not mandatory.

¶39

As per the facts on record, the accused-petitioner remained as Founder Person in the OPJS University from 2013-2015 and the OPJS University is registered on the name of the accused-petitioner. At the time of registration of the present criminal case, the accused-petitioner was the Chancellor & Founder/Operator of the University.

¶40

There is ample evidence on record as regards the issuance of forged and fake documents i.e. certificates and degrees to large number of unemployed persons in lieu of money and has accumulated huge money. 14. As far as the co-accused, namely, Pramjeet Singh and Mandeep Kumar who have been enlarged on bail are concerned, the allegation against the them are that they were mediators or connected with the mediators in between the candidates and the accused-petitioner for issuance of the forged documents. On consideration of the allegation and the evidence collected during investigation, this Court can safely held that the case of the present accused-petitioner is

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

(6 of 8)

altogether different from the case of the co-accused, namely, Pramjeet Singh and Mandeep Kumar.

¶45

On perusal of the Investigation Report, it has also come on record that following other criminal cases of similar nature are pending against the accused-petitioner which are as under:-

¶46

FIR No.194/2018, registered at Police Station Bhiwani City, Haryana for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, which is still pending in the Court;

¶47

FIR No.03/2019, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Sector-17 Panchkula, Haryanafor the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, which is still pending in the Court;

¶48

FIR No.12/2024, registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and sections 3, 7, 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination Act, 2022 and 66D of the I.T. Act;

¶49

FIR No.14/2024, registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and sections 3, 7, 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination Act, 2022 and 66D of the I.T. Act; and

¶50

FIR No. 15/2024 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and sections 3, 7, 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination Act, 2022 and 66D of the I.T. Act.

¶51

Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the seriousness of the allegation against the present accused-petitioner and the observations of this Court made in the order dated 28.01.2025 whereby, first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed and more particularly the fact that some other criminal cases of similar

(7 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

nature and allegations are pending against the accussedpetitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶56

Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is dismissed.

¶57

Before parting with this order, this Court would like to send a copy of this order to the Ministry Law & Justice, Government of India with a hope to revisit the provisions of Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023 so as to make bifurcation of certain offences on the basis of the punishment provided for such offences so as to extend the benefit of bail under the said provisions for the reason that certain offences are of serious and grave nature for which the sentence provided is of even life imprisonment have been made by triable by Magistrate and the case of non-conclusion of the trial within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence seeks benefit of bail. The provisions of Section 480(6) of the BNSS as regards grant of bail for the offences for which the punishment provided is life imprisonment or more than 7 years seems to be unjustified. It is for the law makers to look into this issue, revisit the provisions of Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023 and if deems proper may do needful in view of the observation given in this order.

[2025:RJ-JP:26906]

[CRLMB-7191/2025]

(8 of 8)

Hence, Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India.

¶62

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶63

Ashish Kumar /6

Jogendra Singh S/O Shri Omprakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogendra Singh S/O Shri Omprakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadev Prasad Vs Kishan Lal

Sita Ram Bachhani Vs Ramavatar

Pradeep Singh Panwaar S/O Shri Ranjeet Singh, Vs Mahendra Kumar Dunn S/O Shri Deepchand Jat

Santara Devi Yadav W/O Shri Suresh Chand Yadav, Vs Gaurav Yadav S/O Shri Suresh Chand Yadav

Kusumlata Jain W/O Late Shri Murarilal Jain Vs Shafi Mohammad S/O Nazeer Khan

Bharat Ram Saini S/O Shri Laduram Saini Vs Lal Chand Saini S/O Babu Lal Saini