Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31771

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
VIVEK BHAMBHU S/O JAGDISH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 15080 / 2024

Advocates:
Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Veerendra Singh, Ms. Jaya Mitra, Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Mr. Vedant Sharma, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Mr. Manoj Sheoran, Mr. Princepal Singh, Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Savita Nathawat, Mr. Karni Ola, Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat, Mr. Suresh Khileri, Mr. Yellop Singh, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary, Mr. S.S. Hora, Mr. T.C. Sharma, Mr. Sahaj Veer Baweja, Ms. Kanika Burman

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception, especially in cases lacking direct evidence against the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 420, 120B - Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 - Sections 4, 5, 6 - Information Technology Act, 2008 - Section 66D - Post arrest bail applications filed by accused petitioners for offences related to examination paper leakage - Allegations against accused include reading solved question papers via mobile phone during examination - Investigation revealed lack of direct evidence connecting accused to the crime - Co-accused granted bail, establishing a precedent for similar treatment - Court finds that accused have been falsely implicated and that charges are triable by Magistrate, with trial likely to take time. (Paras 1-36)

(B) Bail considerations - The court emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in cases involving serious allegations affecting public interest - The gravity of the allegations and the evidence collected were considered, but the court ultimately allowed bail for certain accused based on their circumstances. (Paras 58-59)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged by a Deputy Superintendent of Police involving multiple accused who allegedly accessed solved question papers through unauthorized means before their examination. Evidence was primarily circumstantial, with no direct links established.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence was insufficient to deny bail, particularly as the co-accused had been granted bail under similar circumstances.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offences and the implications of the charges on the recruitment process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct evidence and the precedent of granting bail to co-accused necessitated the granting of bail to the petitioners, emphasizing the principle that the accused should not be punished before trial.

Result: Bail applications allowed.

Order

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:-

3. Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Veerendra Singh, Ms. Jaya Mitra & Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, in Bail Application Nos.15080/2024 & 15456/2024, Mr. Vedant Sharma and Mr. Shivam Sharma, in Bail Application Nos. 15081/2024, 15449/2024, 15450/202, 5451/2024 & 15452/2024, Mr. Deepak Chauhan, in Bail Application No. 15082/2024, Mr. Manoj Sheoran, Mr. Princepal Singh, in Bail Application No. 15151/2024, Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Savita Nathawat, in Bail Application No.15152/2024, Mr. Karni Ola, in Bail Application No.15153/2024, Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat and Mr. Suresh Khileri, in Bail Application No. 15448/2024, Mr. Yellop Singh and Princepal Singh, in Bail Application No. 15453/2024, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary, in Bail Application Nos. 15454/2024 & 15455/2024 and Ms. Kanika Burman in Bail Application No. 15457/2024, submitted that the accused petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case as general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against them. It has been submitted that the allegations against the accused petitioners are of reading the solved question paper on Mobile phone on WhatsApp provided to them by the site handlers of the persons involved and managed in leakage of question paper and they passed the examination. It has also been submitted that this exercise taken place in one and a half hours. It is highly impractical for a candidate to read the solved question paper on a mobile set that too in a very short span, as, the candidates are required to reach the Center an hour before examination. However, no such evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation which connects the accused petitioners with the alleged crime.

It has also been submitted that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioners are triable by the Magistrate, charge-sheet has since been filed against them and the trial of the case is likely to take time to conclude. It has also been submitted that the accused petitioners have committed no offence of cheating or forgery. It has also been submitted that there is no evidence on record so as to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged offences except the information given by them under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which cannot be the sole ground for conviction.

It has also been submitted that co-accused persons namely; (1) Karanpal Godara s/o Omprakash Godara (Bail Application No. 6717/2024), (2) Ekta d/o Mohan Singh (Bail Application No.6728/2024), (3) Manohar Lal s/o Shri Kishnaram (Bail Application No.7340/2024), (4) Surendra Kumar s/o Mohanram (Bail Application No.7351/2024), (5) Rohitashwa Kumar s/o Shri Shishupal Jaat (Bail Application No.7364/2024), (6) Premsukhi w/o Shri Rajkumar d/o Shri Ramswaroop (Bail Application No.9183/2024), (7) Abhishek Vishnoi s/o Shri Dalpatsingh Vishnoi (Bail Application No.9710/2024), (8) Rajeshwari d/o Babulal (Bail Application No.11330/2024), (9) Neeraj Kumar s/o Kawar Singh Yadav (Bail Application No.13393/2024), and (10) Prav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31771

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, JVIVEK BHAMBHU S/O JAGDISH CHANDRA – AppellantVersusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN – RespondentCRLMB / 15080 / 2024

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception, especially in cases lacking direct evidence against the accused.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
VIVEK BHAMBHU S/O JAGDISH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 15080 / 2024