Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Gamaram Alias Ghamaram Khileri, S/o Poonmaram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused Gamaram Alias Ghamaram Khileri S/o Poonmaram, Ram Niwas Vishnoi S/o Sukhram Vishnoi and Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Foosaram, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.10/2024 registered at P.S. Special Police Station (SOG) District – ATS and SOG, for the offence under Sections 419 , 420 and 120B IPC and 4, 5 and 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and 66D of IT Act.
2. First bail applications of these petitioners were dismissed by this Court on 01.09.2025. The material on record indicates that after dismissal of the bail application on 01.09.2025 petitioner-accused Gamaram filed SLP No. 14985/2025, and the same was dismissed on 25.09.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the statement made on behalf of Ramnivas and Ramesh, no SLP has been preferred by them against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investi
Bail applications in serious criminal matters are to be evaluated on individual merit considering past decisions and severity of charges without guarantee of parity.
Though accused has right to make successive applications for grant of bail, court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider reasons and grounds on which earlier bail appli....
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 if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.
Bail is a rule, but denial is justified when serious allegations and criminal history indicate a likelihood of re-offending and tampering with evidence.
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
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
