##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:20958]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3/2026

Piyush Kumar Trivedi S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Trivedi, Aged About

26 Years, R/o Near Pg College, In Front Of First Tower, Police

Station Kotwali, District Dausa.

(Accused Is In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Jaipur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4/2026

Subham Gurjar S/o Shri Guman Singh Gurjar, Aged About 29

Years, R/o Gram Kherwal, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa,

Rajasthan.

(At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pandey

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma

Mr. Ketan Dhabhai

Mr. Amit Puri

Mr. Jai Kumar Jain

Ms. Keerti

Ms. Bhumika Goyal

Mr. Samarth Kumar Jain

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

19/05/2026

1. The matter is listed today in the category of ‘to be

mentioned.’

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:32:36 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 10:55:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:20958] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3/2026]

2. It has come on record that while pronouncing the order

dated 15.05.2026, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

made in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh Etc.,

2025 INSC 341 reproduced in paragraph No.12 of the order were

inadvertently quoted.

3. Accordingly, it is made clear that the corrected paragraph

No.12, as reproduced hereinbelow, shall be read in place of

paragraph No.12 contained in the order dated 15.05.2026. The

observations are as under:-

“12. This Court also cannot lose sight of the observations

made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh Etc., 2025 INSC 341

wherein, while considering offences involving manipulation of

examination processes, it was observed as under:-

“9. Keeping in view the above pronouncements of law,

we are of the view that the Trial Court had been correct

in denying bail to the respondents herein.

Considerations by the High Court of lack of

criminal antecedents and the period of custody

are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but

the Court while giving due credence to them,

cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its

effect on society

10. In India, the reality is that there are far more

takers of Government jobs than there are jobs

available. Be that as it may, each job which has a

clearly delineated entry process - with prescribed

examination and/or interview process, has only

to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute

scrupulousness in the process being followed instills

and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the

fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions,

are the ones who have deservedly been installed to

such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly

committed by the respondents represent possible

chinks in the faith of the people in the public

administration and the executive

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:32:36 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 10:55:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:20958] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3/2026]

11. Since surely there must have been thousands

of people who appeared for the exam, and the

respondent-accused persons, for their own

benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the

exam, possibly affecting so many of those who

would have put in earnest effort to appear in the

exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur

with the view of the Trial Court that they are not

entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is

also true that every person has a presumption of

innocence working in their favour till and such time the

offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be

established by the process of law, that the

respondent accused have indeed not committed

any crime in law.

(Emphasis Supplied)”

4. Accordingly, the subsequent paragraph numbers ‘15’ and ‘16’

appearing in the earlier order be read as para numbers ‘13’ and

‘14’.

5.