Bail may be denied in cases of organized crime affecting public integrity, especially where the accused is a habitual offender and the evidence suggests active involvement in a syndicate, notwithstanding the general principle that bail is the rule.

Order

Date of conclusion of arguments:- 23.04.2026

Date on which the judgment was Reserved :- 23.04.2026

Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced:- Full Judgment

Date of pronouncement:- 27.04.2026

1. The present bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No.66/2024 dated 19.10.2024, registered at the Police Station Special Police Station (S.O.G.), District ATS & SOG Crime. The case concerns offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3 , 4, 6, and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that accused petitioner has been falsely implicated and played no role in the alleged unfair activities during the Revenue Officer Grade II and Executive Officer Class IV (Self Governance Department) Recruitment Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue Officer Examination 2022’). It is contended that the accusation primarily relies on the claim that the petitioner transmitted leaked question papers via electronic devices, in exchange for money; however, there’s no credible or solid evidence to support this, and the allegations appear to be based on mere speculation.

3. It is further contended that the prosecution's case hinges mainly on call detail records and alleged digital links, but the SIM cards and mobile numbers involved are not registered in his client's name, nor has any device been recovered from him. He further pointed out that some candidates previously caught in this investigation have been granted bail, and the present petitioner’s case should similarly be treated with parity.

4. Additionally, the counsel emphasized that there is little chance of the petitioner fleeing or destroying evidence, as he has been in custody since 22.10.2024. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet was filed on 11.01.2025 and continued detention amounts to pre-trial incarceration, infringing on his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard counsel has placed reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (AIR 1977 SC 2447), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 emphasizing that bail is generally the rule, and refusal must be justified by compelling reasons and reliance was also placed upon the judgments passed by this Court, Narendra vs. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12609/2013 and Rahul Katara vs. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20783/2021, to argue that the severity of the offense alone shouldn't be the sole basis for denying bail, but factors like flight risk and tampering must also be considered. Therefore considering the aforesaid facts and period of custody, the accused petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, strongly opposed the bail application and contended that charges against the petitioner are serious and linked to a well-organized syndicate involved in unfair practices during the Revenue Officer Examination, 2022. Learned AAG further stated that the charge sheet has already been filed, and collected evidence clearly shows the petitioner’s ac