IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that serious allegations of forgery and cheating warrant denial of bail, especially when they undermine the integrity of recruitment processes.

ORDER :

1. These four bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 0013/2024 dated 08.04.2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and section 66D of the Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, hence same are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 08.04.2024, Satnam Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police, SOG, Jaipur submitted a written report, which runs as under:

On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR bearing no. 13/2024 dated 08.04.2024 was registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), ATS & SOG under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act.

3. Mr. Vipin Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner/Rakesh Kumar Sharma submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and he is not running any printing press or works therein and he is not having any connection with co-accused who is supposed to provide false certificate and medals to the candidates. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is also not having any connection with the examination in question. Counsel further submitted that the Police has completed its investigation against the petitioner and now no recovery is pending against the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that there is no recovery from the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid matter; the petitioner has no relation with the alleged offence and the learned Court blow did not consider the same and dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.04.2024 and the trial of the case will take its own time to conclude. Hence the accused petitioner may be released on bail.

4. Mr. Ashish Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner/Pradeep Kumar Sharma submitted that there are no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed any such alleged offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case by the police without any connecting and corroborating evidence and he is an innocent person. Counsel further submitted that no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act is made out against the petitioner from the bare perusal of the F.I.R. as well as from the evidence came on record during investigation so far. Counsel also submitted that in this case the present petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. as an accused; there is no any allegation against him; he has no concern with the alleged crime and there is no evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged crime. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence of cheating and has not prepared any such alleged forged documents. Further, in this case, no any victim person has lodged the F.I.R. the petitioner has not received any amount from any person and no any private person has lodged any F.I.R. and no allegations have been against the petitioner, but during investigation, the police has falsely implicated and arrested the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the police has almost completed the investigation and hence, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted for any purpose as now nothing is to be recovered or to be investigated from him. Counsel also submitted that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by Magistrate and the investigation as well as trial of the case will further take long considerable time. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody si