IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – There exists difference between setting aside order of bail and cancellation of bail – Considerations by High Court of lack of criminal antecedents and period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but Court while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of primary offence and its effect on society.
(2) Bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily.
(3) Every person has presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals question the correctness of the final judgment and order dated 8th May 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan (Bench at Jaipur), in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3348/2024 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4789/2024 titled Indraj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Salman Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, respectively. The State is aggrieved by the order of the High Court granting bail to the above named accused in connection with FIR No. 009 dated 28th February 2024 at PS-Special Police Station (SOG) District - ATS or MOG under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Per the First Information Report, it is alleged that the Respondent (Indraj Singh) had compromised the sanctity of a public recruitment examination conducted by the Government, i.e. Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022. Another candidate had allegedly appeared as a “dummy candidate” in place of respondent Indraj Singh. The attendance sheet was allegedly tampered with, and another person’s photograph was affixed to the original admit card. The police commenced investigation and recorded statement of the complainant, Mr. Ravi Kumar Vaishnav, Section Officer, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and obtained relevant documents, such as OMR sheet and the original admit card, allegedly used by the respondent Indraj Singh and the respondent Salman Khan. The former was arrested on 1st March 2024 and the latter was arrested on the next day, 2nd March, 2024. Respondent Salman Khan caused recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, of a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs on the head of Yes Bank, Mandawa Branch, Rajasthan, given by the respondent Indraj Singh to him.

4. Respondent Indraj Singh filed Bail Application No. 83/24 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, Metropolitan II, which was disposed of vide order dated 13th March, 2024 and the ultimate relief was denied. It was observed that the actions of the respondent were disruptive to the system established by law, causing significant harm to the Government, administration, department and the candidates participating in the examination. Therefore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, bail was rejected.

5. Respondent Salman Khan filed Bail Application No. 114/24 in connection with the above incident before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, Metropolitan II, which was disposed of in the negative by order dated 4th April 2024. The reasoning adopted therefor was that respondent Salman Khan, along with other co-accused persons, had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the end of financial gain by arranging for a dummy candidate to take the exam for another person. It was also observed that there was evidence of financial transactions between respondent-Salman Khan and respondent-Indraj Singh. Both respondents have been collectively referred to, by this Court as respondent-accused.

6. Aggrieved by such denial of bail, both respondents knocked on the doors of the High Court. Vide the common impugned judgment, their prayers for bail were accepted. Such a conclusion favouring the accused was premised on the following grounds:

1. No person had received any appointments to the position for which the exam had been held.

2. There was no conclusive evidence on record to show that respondent Indraj Singh had made respondent Salman Khan appear as a dummy candidate.

3. Both respondents do not possess any criminal antecedents, and the investigation has been completed.

4. Custody underwent is approximately two months.

7. We have heard Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde for