The court held that procedural irregularities in committal proceedings and parity with a separate FIR are not sufficient grounds for bail when the accused is allegedly the mastermind in a systematic forgery racket involving educational degrees and public employment.

Order

1. The petitioner has filed this fourth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.12/2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), Jaipur for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3 , 7, 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022 and Section 66(d) of IT Act, 2008.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the allegations against the present petitioner is that he issued fake degrees in his capacity as the Chairperson of OPJS University, which is a purely private institution and there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the petitioner either signed, authorized or instructed the issuance of any forged or fabricated degree or document. It is further averred that the petitioner had resigned from the management of the University in the year 2015 and since then he had no administrative control or involvement in the affairs of the University. Counsel also contends that even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner had forged or prepared any document but mere issuance or delivery of any document would not fall within the ambit of the definition of “forgery” as contemplated under the law. It is further submitted that mere backdating or mentioning an earlier date on a document does not, by itself, constitute forgery, unless it results in the creation of a “false document". Additionally, it is contended that in the present matter, the charge-sheet has been filed directly before the Special Court. As per Section 193 of the CrPC (corresponding Section 213 of BNSS), the said Court does not have the competence to take cognizance unless the case is committed by the Magistrate. Therefore, in absence of such committal, the continuation of the proceedings before trial court is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that in a similar matter involving more serious allegations, an FIR bearing No. 13/2024 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 granted bail to the petitioner. Petitioner is behind the bars since 05.07.2024, the trial has commenced which will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody. Hence, bail application of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon following judgments in support of his arguments:-

i) Moly and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 4 SCC 584;

ii) Dr. S. Sourubarani & Anr. Vs. C. Selvi reported in 2004 SCC Online Mad 1082;

iii) Gangula Ashok and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 504;

iv) In Re: Referring Officer, Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Ors. reported in MANU/AP/1032/2000;

(v) State of Bihar Vs. Rambalak Singh & ors., 1966 SCC OnLine SC 94;

(vi) Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi & ors., (1995) 4 SCC 190;

(vii) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Paramasiva Pandian , (2002) 1 SCC 15;

(viii) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Paramasiva Pandian , 2000 SCC OnLine Mad 672.

5. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application and submitted that three earlier bail applications of the petitioner have already been rejected on merits, and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting grant of bail at this stage. It is further contended that the petitioner is the founder as well as the Chairperson of OPJS University which is owned and controlled by him and therefore he cannot evade responsibility for the acts carried out under the aegis of the said institution. It is contended that the petitioner was actively involved in procuring and issuing fake de