The court emphasized that if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.747/2022 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 419 , 420 and 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 and 6(a) of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairmeans) Act, 1992 and Sections 3, 6, 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairmeans) Amendment Act, 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused persons namely Peera Ram and Suresh Kumar have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel submitted that the role assigned to the present petitioner in commission of the alleged offences is exactly similar to and not at all distinguishable from that of above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.05.2024 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. The order dated 28.01.2025 passed by this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Suresh Kumar (S.B. Cr. 2^nd Bail Application No.9449/2023) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.747/2022, registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 420 , 419 and 120-B of IPC ; Sections 3, 4, 6A of Rajasthan Public Examination Act 1992; and Sections 3, 6, 9, 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the chargesheet, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the role assigned to the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime is exactly similar to and not at all distinguishable with that of the co- accused- Peera Ram. Learned counsel submitted that the co- accused- Peera Ram has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13265/2024 vide order dated 06.12.2024 on the ground that he had undergone incarceration for a period of approximately 1 year and 11 months. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.01.2023 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Heard.

The order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13265/2024: “Peera Ram v. State of Rajasthan” is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

“1. Leave granted.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State pointed out that incomplete copy of the charge-sheet has been annexed by the appellant and most material 16 pages have not been annexed. We agree with the submission that the appellant ought to have annexed a complete