Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Shivratan Mot Son Of Banshilal Mot vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:8734) on 27 February, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:8734]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16164/2024
Shivratan Mot Son of Banshilal Mot, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident of Thethar, Police Station Rajiyasar, District
Shriganganagar (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Special
Public Prosecutor with
Ms. Shreya Hatila
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
27/02/2025
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner
under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.10/2024
registered at Police Station Special Police Station (S.O.G.) Jaipur,
District A.T.S. and S.O.G. for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420 & 120B of IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the
Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,
1992 and Section 66D of I.T. Act.
2. Heard.
3. Considered the materials made available on record.
4. The allegations against the petitioner is that in connivance
with the other co-accused namely; Unike Bhambhu and Rajesh
Khandelwal, who are the real culprits of leaking the question
paper for the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector 2021, he
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8734] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024]
was assigned the duty by Rajesh Khandelwal at the room where
the question papers were kept before commencement of the
written examination.
5. In view of the aforesaid allegations, the accused-petitioner
has been implicated in a case punishable for the offences under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 408, 409, 201 &
109 read with Section 34 & 120B of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of
Rajasthan Public Exams (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992
and Section 66D of I.T. Act.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is
neither anything on record nor any evidence has been collected by
the Investigating Agency as regard the assigning of duty to the
petitioner by any of the co-accused at the place where question
papers were kept prior to commencement of the examination.
Counsel further submits that the duties at the place where
question papers were kept, were assigned under the instructions
of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He has placed on
record the details of the persons who were deputed at the
examination centre that is Ravindra Bal Bharti Senior Secondary
School, Shantinagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. The said details do not
find the name of the accused- petitioner, which speaks that the
petitioner was never assigned any duty and the allegation against
him are false and fabricated.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
there is no evidence as regards the transaction of money in
between the petitioner and the other co-accused. He further
submitted that no any relative of the petitioner had appeared in
the said S.I. Recruitment Examination and nothing is said to have
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8734] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024]
been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the
accused-petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the accused-
petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of
the information sought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from
the co-accused and the petitioner. It is also submitted by counsel
for the petitioner that as per the instructions of the RPSC, the
videography of the entry gate of the room where the question
papers were kept prior to commencement of the examination was
conducted but, no any such videography has been placed on
record or collected as an evidence during investigation so that it
can be ascertained whether the petitioner performed any kind of
duty at that place. Counsel also submitted that the accused-
petitioner is a Government employee and Police after completion
of investigation has submitted the charge-sheet and he is no more
required for any kind of interrogation and there is no chance of his
absconding. Counsel further submitted that the accused-petitioner
is in custody since 06.03.2024.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Anurag Sharma with
Ms. Shreya Hatila submitted that the information of co-accused
namely; Rajesh Khandelwal sought under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act discloses the involvement of the accused-petitioner
in commission of the offence that is leaking the paper. He further
submits that the co-accused Rajesh Khandelwal has stated that
the main culprit of the matter that is Unike Bhambhu introduced
the petitioner to him and asked him to assign the duty and kept
question papers prior to commencement of the examination.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
accused-petitioner has also identified the place where he was
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8734] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024]
introduced by Unike Bhambhu to Rajesh Khandelwal for assigning
the duty. He further submitted that in the last two years it has
come out that the accused-petitioner was in connection with the
main accused Unike Bhambhu, which is revealed from the call
details.
9. On consideration of the submissions and scrutiny of the
evidence collected during investigation, the Court finds that the
only evidence which the Investigating Agency has shown is the
information sought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from co-
accused Rajesh Khandelwal and the present petitioner and so also
the call details as regards the connectivity of the accused-
petitioner with the co-accused Unike Bhambhu i.e. of period post
exam.
10. As per the instructions of the RPSC, the persons were
deputed at the examination centres, including at rooms where the
question papers were kept prior to commencement of the
examination. As per the details placed before this Court, there is
no evidence as regards the assigning any duty to the petitioner at
the examination centre.
11. As per the instructions of the RPSC, the videography was to
be conducted at the entry gate of the room where the question
papers were kept before commencement of the examination but,
no such videography has been collected by the Investigating
Agency or forwarded to the Investigation Agency by the RPSC so
that it could be ascertained whether the accused-petitioner was
actually present at the examination centre from where the
question papers got leaked. The Police after completion of
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8734] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16164/2024]
investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter
and the accused-petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024.
12. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this
Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits
of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
13. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction
of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before
that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred,
on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to
do so.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /24
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link