The court emphasized the necessity of proving allegations beyond reasonable doubt, adhering to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly for offences triable by Magistrate.

Order

Date of Reserve ::: November 08, 2024 Date of Pronouncement ::: November 22, 2024

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 competitive examination for the post of Sub Inspector held in the year 2021, he appeared as a dummy candidate in place of one Vikramjeet in exchange of RS.10,00,000/- and before appearing in the examination he is said to have stayed with Vikramjeet at Jain Dharamshala, Udaipur.

Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2024, though he has not been named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner is working on the post of Teacher at Government Upper Primary School, Nehdai, Panchayat Samiti Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer and on the alleged date i.e. on 13.09.2024 he was on duty at the place of posting as is evident from the attendance register. He further submitted that the candidate Vikramjeet himself appeared in the written examination, which is proved from the photograph affixed on the admit card at the time of submitting the application form and the another photograph during the examination and both are same.

Counsel further submitted that the Manager of Jain Dharamshala, Udaipur, in his statement has not asserted that the accused petitioner stayed there with Vikramjeet and the guest register also does not disclose the fact that the accused petitioner stayed there. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence on record so as to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences. Connsel further submitted that as per the instructions issued in regard to the written examination for the post of Sub Inspector, the videography was to be done as regards the candidates who appeared in the written examination. He further submitted that the Investigating Agency has not submitted any videography so as to prove the allegations against the accused petitioner. Counsel also submitted that the report of the hand writing expert which is being used as an evidence against the petitioner, is not a scientific evidence but it is only the evidence for corroboration of the allegations. Counsel also submitted that the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioner are triable by Magistrate and no offences under sections 419 and 467 and 468 IPC are made out against the petitioner as he has not prepared any forged documents.

4. Per contra Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the hand-writing of the accused petitioner, the signatures put on the attendance sheet and OMR sheets of the candidate Vikramjeet were sent to the FSL Department and the signatures and the other hand written material on the attendance sheet of the candidate of Vikramjeet were found to be matching with the hand writing of the present petitioner, which clearly speaks that the accused petitioner appeared in the SI examination as a dummy candidate for