1. Bail in case of alleged supply of copying material during public recruitment examination. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 940
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Suraj Singh Dhangar S/o Shri Diwan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1468, 1469, 1470 Of 2026
Decided On : 28-07-2026
Important Points
Procedural lapses in furnishing written grounds of arrest do not automatically entitle an accused to bail if the grounds were substantially communicated and no demonstrable prejudice occurred, as the court prioritizes the constitutional object of Article 22(1) over mere procedural irregularities.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA: S.483
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.115(2), S.126(2), S.238(a), S.316(2), S.318(4), S.336(3), S.338, S.340(2), S.61(2)(a)
PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS PREVENTION OF UNFAIR MEANS ACT: S.10, S.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.22(1)
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.115(2), S.126(2), S.238(a), S.316(2), S.318(4), S.336(3), S.338, S.340(2), S.61(2)(a)
PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS PREVENTION OF UNFAIR MEANS ACT: S.10, S.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.22(1)
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a), 115(2), 126(2), 238(a) - Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 - Sections 10 and 11 - Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Communication of grounds of arrest - Procedural lapse versus constitutional safeguard - Grant of bail - The communication of grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 22(1). While furnishing these grounds in writing is the rule, a procedural lapse does not automatically render an arrest illegal or entitle the accused to bail if the accused substantially understood the grounds and no demonstrable prejudice occurred (Paras 12, 13 and 21).
(B) Bail - Discretionary relief - Gravity of offence - Manipulation of recruitment examinations - Offences that compromise the fairness, transparency, and integrity of public recruitment examinations strike at the foundation of merit-based selection and erode public confidence, thereby justifying the denial of discretionary bail despite the filing of a charge-sheet (Paras 18 and 20).
(C) Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 - Scope of "public examination" - Adjudication at bail stage - Whether a specific examination falls within the ambit of a "public examination" is a factual and legal issue requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 483 of BNSS (Para 19).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, entrusted with the conduct of a recruitment examination for a government post, were alleged to have supplied copying materials to candidates and facilitated unauthorized access to the examination center for a monetary consideration. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed citing CCTV footage, electronic evidence, and financial trails. The petitioners sought bail, contending that their arrest was vitiated due to the non-supply of written grounds of arrest and questioning whether the exam qualified as a "public examination" under the relevant Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arrest memos indicated that petitioners were informed of the grounds of arrest and their families were notified. Since no prejudice was demonstrated and no objection was raised during initial remand, the procedural imperfection in providing written grounds did not invalidate the arrest. Further, the prima facie evidence established the active participation of the petitioners in a conspiracy to compromise the examination's integrity.
Issues: Whether the non-communication of written grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) sufficient to entitle the accused to bail, and whether the gravity of allegations regarding exam manipulation outweighs the petitioners' claim for discretionary bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the test for determining if a procedural lapse in communicating arrest grounds entitles an accused to bail is whether the accused substantially understood the grounds and suffered actual prejudice. Where the constitutional object of Article 22(1) is fulfilled, procedural irregularities alone do not justify bail. Additionally, the societal impact of compromising public examinations outweighs considerations ordinarily favoring bail.
Result: all the bail applications stand dismissed.
(B) Bail - Discretionary relief - Gravity of offence - Manipulation of recruitment examinations - Offences that compromise the fairness, transparency, and integrity of public recruitment examinations strike at the foundation of merit-based selection and erode public confidence, thereby justifying the denial of discretionary bail despite the filing of a charge-sheet (Paras 18 and 20).
(C) Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 - Scope of "public examination" - Adjudication at bail stage - Whether a specific examination falls within the ambit of a "public examination" is a factual and legal issue requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 483 of BNSS (Para 19).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, entrusted with the conduct of a recruitment examination for a government post, were alleged to have supplied copying materials to candidates and facilitated unauthorized access to the examination center for a monetary consideration. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed citing CCTV footage, electronic evidence, and financial trails. The petitioners sought bail, contending that their arrest was vitiated due to the non-supply of written grounds of arrest and questioning whether the exam qualified as a "public examination" under the relevant Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arrest memos indicated that petitioners were informed of the grounds of arrest and their families were notified. Since no prejudice was demonstrated and no objection was raised during initial remand, the procedural imperfection in providing written grounds did not invalidate the arrest. Further, the prima facie evidence established the active participation of the petitioners in a conspiracy to compromise the examination's integrity.
Issues: Whether the non-communication of written grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) sufficient to entitle the accused to bail, and whether the gravity of allegations regarding exam manipulation outweighs the petitioners' claim for discretionary bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the test for determining if a procedural lapse in communicating arrest grounds entitles an accused to bail is whether the accused substantially understood the grounds and suffered actual prejudice. Where the constitutional object of Article 22(1) is fulfilled, procedural irregularities alone do not justify bail. Additionally, the societal impact of compromising public examinations outweighs considerations ordinarily favoring bail.
Result: all the bail applications stand dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- bail and pre-trial detention
- constitutional law
-
statutory interpretation
- public examinations (prevention of unfair means) act, 2024
- bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023
-
bharatiya nyaya sanhita, 2023
- sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a), 115(2), 126(2), 238(a) (Para 1)
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.R. Bajwa Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Savita Nathawat, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Ms. Bhumika Sharma, Mr. G.L. Sharma, Mr. Shanker Lal, Mr. Anil Jain, Mr. Dushyant Jain, Mr. Bhuwnesh Saini, Mr. Udit Sapra
For the Respondents: Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP, Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, Add. SP, Kota City is present in person
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.R. Bajwa Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Savita Nathawat, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Ms. Bhumika Sharma, Mr. G.L. Sharma, Mr. Shanker Lal, Mr. Anil Jain, Mr. Dushyant Jain, Mr. Bhuwnesh Saini, Mr. Udit Sapra
For the Respondents: Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP, Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, Add. SP, Kota City is present in person
Table of Contents
2. Non-supply of written grounds of arrest vitiates detention; applicability of Public Examinations Act is disputed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Substantial communication of arrest grounds, not mere procedural lapse, is the test for bail; no prejudice shown. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Non-supply of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail if no demonstrable prejudice is caused. (Para 13 , 14 , 21 )
5. Bail applications dismissed; no ground to exercise discretion under Section 483, BNSS. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. Does non-supply of written grounds of arrest automatically entitle an accused to bail?
No, if the grounds were substantially communicated and no demonstrable prejudice is caused, bail is not automatic. (Para 13 , 14 , 21 )
7. What is the test to determine validity of arrest grounds under Article 22(1)?
The real test is whether the accused substantially understood the grounds and suffered any demonstrable prejudice, not mere procedural irregularity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
8. Is failure to raise objection at remand proceedings relevant for subsequent bail plea?
Yes, it is a relevant circumstance in assessing whether the accused remained unaware of grounds or suffered prejudice. (Para 15 , 16 )
9. Can applicability of the Public Examinations Act be decided at the bail stage?
No, such factual and legal issues require appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at bail stage. (Para 19 )
10. What societal interest is considered when granting bail for examination malpractices?
The gravity of offence compromising transparency and merit-based selection outweighs considerations ordinarily favouring bail. (Para 18 , 20 )
Order :
PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.265/2025 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, District Kota City for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a), 115(2), 126(2) and 238(a) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 10 and 11 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2024”).
2. As per the prosecution story, during the examination of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (“CCRAS”) for recruitment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff ("MTS") conducted at Kota Online I.T. Education Center, the petitioners who were entrusted with ensuring the fair and proper conduct of the above examination, allegedly supplied copying material to the candidates appearing therein.
3. Since all the bail applications arise out of the same FIR and involve common questions of fact and law, hence, they are being decided by this common order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion and the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and, therefore, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no longer required. It was argued that no recovery remains to be affected from the petitioners. Petitioners have remained in custody since December, 2025 without any criminal antecedents. It was further contended that the case under Sections relating to the cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot legally co-exist. The information obtained under the Right to Information Act has been relied upon to contend that the examination conducted by the "CCRAS" does not constitute a "public examination" within the meaning of the "Act of 2024".
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also assailed the legality of the arrest on the ground that the constitutional and statutory safeguards relating to the communication of the grounds of arrest were not duly complied with, therefore, petitioners may be enlarged on bail. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judicial precedents:
i. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another , (2025) 5 SCC 799.
ii. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another , (2026) 1 SCC 500.
iii. Dr. Rajinder Ranjan v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327.
iv. Jhabra Ram v. State of Rajasthan , S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 4778/2026 decided on 18.05.2026.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail applications and submits that the present case pertains to a well-orchestrated conspiracy to manipulate the recruitment examination by facilitating the use of unfair means. It is contended that the charge-sheet attributes distinct and specific roles to each of the petitioners. Petitioner Suraj, who is the cluster head and exam in-charge, is alleged to have concealed material facts relating to the functioning of the examination center. Petitioner Sagar, who was functioning as the venue in-charge, facilitated unauthorized access to the examination center, permitted the use of mobile phones and participated in providing the solved answer sheets to the candidates appearing in the examination. Petitioner Gaurav has received an amount of Rs.50,000/- as part of the proceeds of the alleged conspiracy. While petitioner Madan Singh, who is partner of the examination center has coordinated with the other co-accused and facilitated the entire operation by providing the necessary infrastructure and support for the commission of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the CCTV footage obtained from the examination center discloses the presence of the petitioners at the relevant time and prima facie depicts their active involvement in supplying solved answer sheets and other m
