1. Challenge to bail rejection order involving offences under Sections 419, 420, 120B IPC and the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act and Amendment Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1011
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Vijayraj – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8255/2025, [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2025 in SBCRMBA No. 1394/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur]
Decided On : 06-06-2025
Important Points
Bail is granted when the totality of circumstances, including duration of custody, warrants it, with conditions for cooperation and good conduct during trial.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.419, S.420
Rajasthan Public Examination Prevention of Unfair Means Amendment Act: S.10, S.3, S.6, S.9
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC EXAMINATION PREVENTION OF UNFAIRMEANS ACT: S.3, S.4, S.6
Rajasthan Public Examination Prevention of Unfair Means Amendment Act: S.10, S.3, S.6, S.9
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC EXAMINATION PREVENTION OF UNFAIRMEANS ACT: S.3, S.4, S.6
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 - Sections 3, 4, 6, 6(a); Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2022 - Sections 3, 6, 9, 10; Indian Penal Code - Sections 4, 19, 420, 120B - Petition for bail in connection with offences under multiple sections; Petitioner has been in custody since 30.09.2023. (Para 2)
(B) Bail - Consideration of totality of circumstances and duration of custody; Petitioner granted bail with conditions for ensuring cooperation during trial and maintaining good conduct. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is in custody regarding FIR No.227 dated 25.12.2022 for the aforementioned offences and seeks leave to appeal against the High Court's order denying bail. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
The court grants bail considering the length of custody and other circumstances surrounding the case, allowing the petitioner to be released under certain conditions. (Paras 4, 10)
Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the circumstances, including his time in custody and the nature of the charges. (Para 2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the totality of circumstances warranted bail, placing emphasis on the petitioner's cooperation with investigators and maintaining good conduct during the trial to ensure proper adjudication. (Para 5)
Result: Petitioner's bail granted under specified conditions.
(B) Bail - Consideration of totality of circumstances and duration of custody; Petitioner granted bail with conditions for ensuring cooperation during trial and maintaining good conduct. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is in custody regarding FIR No.227 dated 25.12.2022 for the aforementioned offences and seeks leave to appeal against the High Court's order denying bail. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
The court grants bail considering the length of custody and other circumstances surrounding the case, allowing the petitioner to be released under certain conditions. (Paras 4, 10)
Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the circumstances, including his time in custody and the nature of the charges. (Para 2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the totality of circumstances warranted bail, placing emphasis on the petitioner's cooperation with investigators and maintaining good conduct during the trial to ensure proper adjudication. (Para 5)
Result: Petitioner's bail granted under specified conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varun Dewan, Adv., Mr. Keshav Ishwar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratiksha Thakur, Adv., Mr. Vikrant, Adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv., Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varun Dewan, Adv., Mr. Keshav Ishwar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratiksha Thakur, Adv., Mr. Vikrant, Adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv., Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks leave to challenge bail rejection; State requests a condition restraining the petitioner from staying within the state during trial. (Para 1 , 11 )
3. Court observed that the totality of circumstances and the duration of custody justify interference with the order denying bail. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Grant of bail may be considered based on the totality of circumstances and the period of incarceration of the accused. (Para 4 )
5. Special leave petition disposed of; bail granted to the petitioner subject to conditions fixed by the Trial Court. (Para 4 , 12 )
6. What factors did the court consider when deciding to grant bail to the petitioner?
The court considered the totality of the circumstances and the duration of the petitioner's custody. (Para 4 )
7. Can a court impose a condition restraining a bail recipient from staying within a specific state during trial?
The court may decline to impose a condition restraining the accused from staying within a specific state if no reason is found to justify such a restriction in the instant case. (Para 11 )
8. What typical conditions may a court impose when granting bail to ensure the integrity of the trial?
Conditions may include cooperating with the investigating agency, maintaining good conduct, not influencing witnesses, avoiding unwarranted adjournments, and reporting to the investigating officer. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
ORDER :
1. The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the order dated 24.02.2025 in SBCRMBA No. 1394/2025 titled “ Vijayraj vs. State of Rajasthan ” passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
2. The petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2023 in connection with FIR No.227 dated 25.12.2022 registered at Police Station Bekriya, District-Udaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 19 , 420 and 120B IPC, Sections 3 , 4, 6, 6(a) of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Sections 3 ,6,9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2022.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned order dated 24.02.2025.
4. Considering the totality of circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2023, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.
5. It goes without saying that the accused, would fully co-operate with the Investigating Agency during the trial for ensuring its expeditious adjudication.
6. Needless to add, the petitioner would maintain good conduct and not endeavour to influence any of the witnesses, in any manner, till the completion of the trial.
7. Under no circumstances, petitioner shall seek any un-warranted adjournment during trial.
8. The petitioner shall furnish his latest address; place of residence; contact number to the Trial Court and shall report to the Investigating Officer at least once a month, till such time the challan is presented for trial.
9. To comply with the order, the petitioner shall be produced before the Trial Court forthwith.
10. In the event of any change of circumstance, it shall be open for the Trial Court to take steps for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.
11. Learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan insists that during the trial, petitioner be restrained from staying within the State of Rajasthan. We see no reason to impose such a condition in the instant case.
12. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
