Back
GANESH RAM MEENA
Girdhariram S/o Birbal Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
1. All these post arrest bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners in connection with FIR No.0010/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 and 120B IPC, sections 4,5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 (for short ‘the Act of 1992’) and section 66D of the Information & Technology Act, 2008 (for short ‘the Act of 2008’), hence, same are being decided by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Niyaj Mohammad Khand, Dy. Superintendent of Police, ATS & SOG lodged an FIR No.0010/2024 dated 03.03.2024 at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 and 120B IPC, sections 4,5 and 6 of the Act of 1992 and section 66D of the Act of 2008, which is quoted as under:-
Accused-Girdhariram (Bail Appl. No.5409/2024) :-
3. Mr. Deepak Chauan, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that as per the charge-sheet filed against the accused petitioner, the allegation against him is that in
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of examination fraud, reinforcing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The court emphasized that bail is contingent upon the gravity of the offense, potential for evidence tampering, and public interest, especially in organized crime cases.
The court dismissed anticipatory bail petitions due to the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of witness tampering.
Bail applications in serious criminal matters are to be evaluated on individual merit considering past decisions and severity of charges without guarantee of parity.
Bail is a rule, but denial is justified when serious allegations and criminal history indicate a likelihood of re-offending and tampering with evidence.
The court reaffirms that anticipatory bail is not to be granted where there is substantial evidence indicating involvement in serious offences affecting societal interests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
