Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Urn: Crlmb / 4666U / 2026Ashok Kumar S/O … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:21859) on 22 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:21859]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1158/2026
Sher Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gangava
Kheda, Post Surana, Police Station Sayla, District Jalore At
Present Probationer Sub Inspector Police Line Kota City. (At
Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2627/2026
Ashok Kumar S/o Jeevanram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Phulsaar
Bada, Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner At Present Gram
Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Bajju, District Bikaner. (At
Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3104/2026
Chunaram S/o Hariram, R/o Bhateep, P.s. Karda, Distt. Jalore,
Presently Sub Inspector (Probationer), Reserve Police Line
Udaipur. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3105/2026
Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh Meena S/o Gopal Meena, R/o
Dola Ka Bas, Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, P.s. Kaladera, Distt. Jaipur
Rural. (Presently Confined In High Security Jail Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (2 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3889/2026
Abhay Singh Son Of Shri Pooman Chand, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Sivada, Jalore ( Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4005/2026
Harshvardhan Kumar Meena S/o Murari Lal Meena, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Salampur Police Station, Mahua, District Dausa
(Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4632/2026
Kunal Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Village
Karani, Post Jhanwar, Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur at
present Sub Inspector (probationer) Reserve Police Line
Rajsamand
(At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5103/2026
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Pancharam Khileri, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Isrol, Police Station Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 5781/2026
Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Foosaram Dhaka, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Dhakon Ki Dhani, Pur, Police Station Sanchore,
District Jalore, Presently Suspended Senior Teacher, Govt. Senior
Secondary School Sankad, Sanchore, Presently Posted Block
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (3 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
Education Officer, Office Sanchore. (Presently Accused Petitioner
Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5782/2026
Ganpat Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Malaram Godara, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Karawadi, Police Station Jhab, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6448/2026
Subhash Muwal S/o Shri Surajmal Muwal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vishanpura Urf Charanvas, Tehsil Chomu Police Station
Samod, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7105/2026
Paurav Kaler S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Rampur, Police Station Chhapar, District Churu. Current Address
B-6, 185 Sudarshana Nagar, Behind Nagenchi Maata Temple,
Police Station Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner
(Raj.) (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7106/2026
Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmalram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village
Matol Chak, Dayasagar, Police Station Phalodi, District Phalodi,
(At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)
(Arrested On 02.02.2026)
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (4 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Vaishnavi, Mr. Dilip
Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr.
Veerendra Singh and Ms. Jaya Mitra
(in CRLMB No. 1158/2026)
Mr. Sarfaraz Hyder Khan with Mr.
Sumit Kumar Upadhayay, Mr. Mirza
Shoaib Ur Rehman (in CRLMB No.
2627/2026)
Mr. Prince Pal Singh (in CRLMB No.
3104/2026)
Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Prince Pal
Singh (in CRLMB-II No. 3105/2026)
Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar with Mr.
Pradeep Malik (in CRLMB No.
3889/2026, CRLMB No.5103/2026
and CRLMB No. 5782/2026)
Mr. Madhav Mitra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Veerendar Singh, Ms. Jaya
Mitra (in CRLMB-II No. 4005/2026
and CRLMB No.4632/2026)
Mr. Rajat Singh Solanki (in CRLMB-III
No.5781/2026)
Mr. Sanjay Sharma (in CRLMB
No.6448/2026)
Mr. Jitendra Choudhary (in CRLMB-II
No. 7105/2026)
Mr. Tushar Bhatnagar, Mr. Vaibhav
Sharma and Ms. Swetlana Chopra (in
CRLMB No.7106/2026)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Spl.PP with
Anoop Meena and Akshat Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Date of conclusion of arguments : 07/05/2026
Date on which the order was reserved : 07/05/2026
Whether the full order or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Order
Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2026
Order
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (5 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1158/2026
(Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail Application No.
2627/2026 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail
Application No. 3104/2026 (Chunaram Vs. State of
Rajasthan), 2nd Bail Application No. 3105/2026 (Anil Kumar
Meena @ Sher Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan), 2nd
Bail Application No.4005/2026 (Harshvardhan Kumar Meena
V. State of Rajasthan), Bail Applicatioin No.4632/2026 (Kunal
Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan), 3rd Bail Application
No.5781/2026 (Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi Vs. State of
Rajasthan), 2nd Bail Application No.7105/2026 (Paurav Kaler
Vs. State of Rajasthan) and Bail Application No.7106/2026
(Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmalram Vs. The State of Rajasthan)
are filed under Section 483 of BNSS in relation to FIR No.
10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 registered at Police Station
Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS and SOG for the
offence under Sections 419, 420, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471,
477, 477A, 201, 109 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of IPC
and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Rajasthan Public
Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in
Recruitment) Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act of 1992') and
under Section 66D of IT Act.
2. S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3889/2026
(Abhay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail Application No.
5103/2026 (Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan), Bail
Application No. 5782/2026 (Ganpat Ram Bishnoi Vs. State of
Rajasthan) and Bail Application No. 6448/2026 (Subhash
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (6 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
Muwal Vs. State of Rajasthan) are filed for anticipatory bail
under Section 482 of BNSS in same FIR.
3. Since all these matters pertain to same set of facts and same
FIR, therefore we are deciding these bail applications with a
common order.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sher Singh
submitted that the allegation upon the present petitioner is
appearing for himself in the examination of Sub-Inspector on
14th September, 2021 and also appearing as dummy
candidate on 13th and 15th September, 2021 on behalf of
Mangalaram and Manohar Singh. He submitted that the
petitioner was selected, and Mangalaram was not selected
but Manohar Singh was selected. He also submitted that
both Mangalram and Manohar were granted bail. He also
submitted that till date, no FSL report has been filed to show
that the present petitioner has impersonated to appear in
Sub-Inspector examination. It is also submitted that he is in
custody since 25th September 2025.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Ashok
Kumar S/o Jeevanram has submitted that he has appeared
as dummy for Kunal Choudhary (petitioner herein) who is
also seeking bail. He also submitted that there is no proof of
financial involvement as both are friends. He also referred
the mention by the agency about the gift of ₹3,00,000/- by
Kunal Choudhary to petitioner. He further referred the
provision under the Act of 1992 and submitted that the
words as used therein clearly shows that no case against the
petitioner is made out, to invoke case of unfair means. He
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (7 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
also referred mental illness of the petitioner and submitted
that the case of the present petitioner is only for appearing
as a dummy on behalf of Kunal Choudhary and there is no
evidence to show that the petitioner has appeared as
dummy. He also submitted that petitioner is arrested on
14th December 2025 and since then he is in custody.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner
Kunal Choudhary has submitted that there is no evidence to
show that the petitioner Kunal Choudhary has not appeared
as a candidate in sub-inspector examination and he engaged
Ashok Kumar to appear on his behalf. He also submitted that
there is no financial involvement or dealing. He further
submitted that the petitioner has not paid any money even
as a gift to Ashok Kumar and the mentioning of SOG is not
supported by any document. He also submitted that
petitioner is arrested on 13th December 2025 and since then
he is in custody.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Chunaram
has submitted that the allegation upon the petitioner, is not
appearing in the examination rather engaging a dummy,
Sohanram. He further submitted that Sohanram has expired
and there is no evidence to show that there is any deal
between Chunaram and Sohanram. He further submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since 13th December 2025
and except the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, no other evidence is available against the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Anil Kumar Meena @
Sher Singh Meena has submitted that the first bail
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (8 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 1st
September 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner has
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court but his bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn and now second bail
application is filed only on ground of delay in trial. He also
submitted that identically placed Vinod Kumar has been
granted bail. He further submitted that even the petitioner
was granted bail in another case of by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Hon'ble Court on 20th January 2026. He further
submitted that in the instant case, Jagdish Vishnoi has
named as Kingpin, was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court on 16th January 2026. He further referred bail
order in case of Rinku Kumar Sharma versus State of
Rajasthan and Rajesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan,
decided on 5th December 2025 by Hon'ble Supreme Court
and submitted that the prosecution has to examination 150
witnesses and several thousand documents and moreover
there are 133 accused. He also submitted that the present
petitioner is entitled for bail only on ground that he is in
custody since 16.03.2024 and the period of custody is more
than two years.
9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner
Harshvardhan Kumar Meena has submitted that the present
petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024 and the period of
custody is more than two years. He also submitted that
allegation upon the petitioner is that he is the handler and
one of the conspirator. He also submitted that the allegation
upon the present petitioner is to engage a dummy candidate
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (9 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
in place of his wife. He also submitted that this petitioner
has also filled application for sub-inspector but he did not
appeared in the examination. He further referred the
circumstances of the case and submitted that even the
Brother-in-law of the petitioner has appeared in the
examination, but he failed in written examination. He
submitted that the circumstances clearly indicate that the
petitioner was only framed to be a handler as the petitioner
was not having any material to supply to his wife and
brother-in-law so that they may pass the examination on
their own. He also submitted that identically placed
Shivratan, Praveen, Suresh Sahu, Suresh Kumar, Jagdish
Vishnoi are released on bail and petitioner is seeking bail
only on ground of parity.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ramesh Kumar
Vishnoi has submitted that the present petitioner is in
custody since 02.05.2025. He also submitted that the
allegation on the petitioner is having friendship with Om
Prakash and Virender Kumar, but Virender Kumar was
granted bail, whereas investigation in relation to Om Prakash
has been stayed by Hon'ble this Court. He also submitted
that the SLP preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn, but
interim bail was granted to the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Paurav Kaler
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 31/05/2024,
and the period of custody is more than two years. He also
submitted that other accused, including Jagdish Vishnoi,
were granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (10 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
the case of the present petitioner is even on better footing
than those accused. He further submitted that the trial has
not begun, and the charges has not been framed.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ashok Kumar has
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02/02/2026,
and the allegation on the present petitioner is to appear as a
dummy candidate on behalf of Shyampratap, Sharwan
Kumar and Madan Lal. He also submitted that three accused
Shyampratap, Sharwan and Madan were already granted
bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having
criminal antecedents, and he is entitled for bail.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Abhay Singh
submitted that the allegation for the present petitioner is
that he read paper to Priyanka Goswami and Priyanka
Goswami was granted bail under Section 438 CrPC by
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that there is no
evidence to show that the present petitioner is involved in
the incident. He also submitted that no custodial
interrogation is required and the petitioner is ready to
cooperate in every manner to SOG. He also submitted that
there is no proof of financial involvement and there are no
chances of any recovery.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kamlesh Kumar has
submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner
is to appear dummy in place of Ashok Kumar. He also
submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any of the
criminal case and there is no financial involvement of the
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (11 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
petitioner. He also submitted that no recovery is anticipated
from the petitioner.
15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ganpat Ram Bishnoi
has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of
reading of paper and nothing more. He also submitted that
there is no proof against the petitioner except oral
mentioning by co-accused in their statement under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submitted that without any
recovery, statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act cannot be read against the petitioner. He also submitted
that there is no chance of any recovery from the petitioner
and identical placed persons were already granted bail.
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Subhash Muwal
submitted that the present petitioner was considered as a
suspect on behalf of the statement of Vinod Rewar. He
further submitted that neither there is any allegation nor any
substantial evidence to show that the present petitioner has
involved in any malpractice. He further submitted that the
present petitioner was selected as sub-inspector and he has
completed training. He further submitted that the arrest will
ruin his future.
17. Learned Senior Advocate and learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioners have submitted that several accused
were granted bail by this court, Coordinate Bench and also
by Hon'ble Supreme Court. They also submitted that since
the trial has not begun, therefore, they are entitled for bail.
They further submitted that the delay is a good ground to
grant them bail.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (12 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
18. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of SOG and submitted
that the charges against the petitioners are very serious and
all related to the Rajasthan Public Service Examination. He
further referred the FSL report against Sher Singh, Ashok
Kumar, Chunaram, Ashok Kumar son of Jagmalram and
submitted that the FSL report is sufficient to show that these
petitioners are involved in the incident. He further submitted
that some of the accused have approached Hon'ble Supreme
Court and they have failed in getting relief from the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. He also submitted that trial Court may be
directed to expedite the hearing.
19. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
petitioner, learned counsel for the parties and learned
Special Public Prosecutor. Also perused the material placed
on record and also considered the judgment and the
documents referred by learned counsel for the parties.
20. FIR No.10/2024 dated 03.03.2024 was registered at Special
Police Station SOG, District ATS and SOG in relation to mass
scale rigging, paper leak, and use of unfair means in Sub-
Inspector Recruitment Examination 2021. Several bail
applications were considered by this Court. We have already
decided a bunch of applications wherein lead case was
Sharwanram @ Sharwan Babal versus State of
Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
197/2025 decided on 1st September 2025. Admittedly,
some of the bail applications were allowed by Hon'ble
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (13 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
Supreme Court and we have considered those orders which
are annexed by learned counsel for the petitioners.
21. The details submitted by learned special public prosecutor on
behalf of SOG to show the real status of these cases and
same are reproduced as under:
Accused in Custody (Seeking bail under Section 483 BNSS)
Sr. No. Name Date of Arrest SLP, if any Role (as per investigation)
1. Sher Singh 25.09.2025 NIL • Appeared as Dummy
Candidate for Mangal
Ram and Manohar
Singh on 13.9.21 and
15.9.21 respectively.
• Struck a deal for Rs.15
Lakhs with Manohar
Singh.
• Manohar Singh was
selected at S.No.171 in
the Merit list whereas
Manglaram failed in
Physical Test.
• FSL reports available.
2. Ashok 14.12.2025 NIL • Appeared as a dummy
Kumar S/o candidate for Kunal
Jeevanram Chaudhry.
• Struck a deal for Rs. 3
Lakhs after selection.
• FSL reports available.
3. Chunaram 13.12.2025 NIL • Sohanram appeared as
dummy candidate for
Chunaram.
• Struck deal for Rs.10
Lakhs.
• Merit rank of Chunaram
was 251.
• FSL report available.
4. Anil Kumar 16.03.2024 SLP (Crl.) No. • Paper leak syndicate
Meena @ 15758/2025 Member.
Sher Singh rejected vide • Deal with Ashok
orderdated Nathawat for Rs.15
17.10.2025 Lakhs.
• Deal with Bhupendra
Sarang for Rs.25
Lakhs.
• Deal with Vinod Rewar
for Rs.10 Lakhs.
• 5 Criminal Cases of
similar nature
registered in the past.
5. Harshvardh 06.03.2024 SLP (Crl.) No. • Handler & Paper leak
an Kumar 18130/2025 Gang Member.
Meena Rejected vide • Obtained exam paper
order dt. from Jagdish Vishnoi
22.01.2026 and circulated through
other accused persons.
• Struck deal for Rs.20
Lakhs with other
accused.
6. Kunal 13.12.2025 NIL • Ashok Kumar appeared
Chaudhary as dummy candidate
for Kunal Chaudhary.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (14 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
• Deal done for
Rs.3Lakhs.
• Merit Rank was 234.
7. Ramesh 02.05.2025 SLP (Crl.) • Provided dummy
Kumar No.20001/2025 candidate for Virender
Vishnoi Rejected vide Meena and Sameta
order dated Kumari.
11.03.2026 • Struck deal for Rs.28
Lakhs for both.
• 3 Criminal Cases of
similar nature
registered in the past.
8. Paurav 31.05.2024 SLP (Crl.) No. • Kingpin of the
Kaler 18274/2025 syndicate.
Rejected vide • Hatched a conspiracy,
order dt. as a result, Rajaram @
21.01.2026 Raju Matrix entered the
office of school, took
photographs of papers
and sent to Paurav
Kaler and Tulchharam
on mobile phone who
shared them with
handlers and other
accused persons in lieu
of money.
• Tulchharam's SLP
No.15251/25 rejected
vide order 21.01.2026.
• Paurav Kaler and other
gang members
helpedthe following
candidates to solve the
paper through bile
tooth for a hefty
amount:
1. Prabha Bishnoi
2. Ankita Godara
3. Manisha Sihag
4. Babita
5. Nirma
6. Monika
7. Surendra Jat
8. Manoj
9. Jairaj Singh
10. Manish Beniwal
11. Raghuvir Charan
• 8 other Criminal cases
of similar nature
registered in the past.
9. Ashok 02.02.2026 NIL • Appeared as dummy
Kumar S/o candidates for 3
Jagmal aspirants namely
Ram Shyam Pratap (for Rs.
20 Lacs), Madan Lal
(for Rs.5 Lacs) and
Sharwan Kumar Godara
(for Rs.10 Lacs).
• Was delcared
absconding & a reward
of Rs.50,000/- was
declared by the police
in his name and
thereafter, he was
arrested.
• FSL reports available.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (15 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
Accused seeking pre-arrest bail (482 BNSS)
Sr. No. Name Role (As per investigation)
1. Abhay Singh • Purchased paper from Bhupendra Saran, who was a
syndicate member.
• Selected at Merit Rank 7.
• Filed SB Crl. Misc. Petition No. 228/2025 wherein he
was directed to join investigation, but he has not
joined investigation till date.
• Custodial interrogation required.
2. Kamlesh Kumar • Appeared as a dummy candidate for Ashok Kumar.
• Merit Rank of Ashok Kumar : 154.
• Struck a deal for Rs. 10 Lakhs.
• Custodial interrogation required.
3. Ganpatram • Purchased paper from Bhupendra Saran who was a
syndicate member.
• Filed SB Crl. Misc. Petition 9376/2024 wherein he was
directed to join investigation, but he has not joined
investigation till date.
• Custodial interrogation required.
4. Subhash Muwal • Struck a deal for Rs.8 Lakhs with gang mamber Vinod
Rewar for purchasing the paper.
• Secured Merit Rank 125.
• Custodial interrogation required.
22. A Medical certificate is filed on behalf of Ashok Kumar son of
Jeevanram, to show his mental condition, wherein it has
been mentioned that he is having panic attacks and we have
gone through the records submitted on the record. Hon’ble
Supreme Court has granted bail in cases of Hanumanram
vs. State of Rajasthan (order dated 23.02.2026),
Purushottam Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan (order
dated 23.03.2026), Anil Kumar @ Sher Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan (order dated 29.04.2026) and Priyanka
Goswami Vs. State of Rajasthan (order dated
12.01.2026).
23. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail in case of
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan on 10.04.2026, Anil
Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan on 25.03.2026, Vinod
Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan on 08.01.2026,
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (16 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
Harshvardhan Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan on
18.12.2024 and Paurav Kaler Vs. State of Rajasthan on
08.04.2026, in other cases as well against some of the
petitioners.
24. In the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of
Maharashtra : SLP (Criminal) No.7502/2026, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused wherein in
past four years not a single witness has been examined. In
case of Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement :
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7, a bail was granted where there were
208 witnesses cited and 63 thousand pages of documents
were filed. In case of Javed Gulam nabi Shaikh Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Another : Criminal Appeal
No.2787/2024 (order dated 3/7/2024), the bail is granted
by Hon’ble Supreme Court to an accused charged under
under the UAPA Act.
25. We have considered all these judgments and we are also
conscious about the fact that some of the accused are in
custody for last almost two years. The materials indicate
that the pace of trial is very slow and the trial Court is not
able to expedite the hearing.
26. Out of these 13 bail applications, four accused are seeking
anticipatory bail under section 482 of the BNSS. This court
has considered the principle regarding grant of bail in case of
Sharwanram @ Sharwan Babal Vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra). The material on record indicates that there were
FSL reports against some of the accused, and other material
against some of them. There were charges that they have
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (17 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
not appeared in the examination, rather, the dummy
candidate were engaged, who have appeared. In some of
the cases, SLP has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court after dismissal of first bail application by this Court.
27. The material clearly indicate role and involvement of these
petitioners, therefore, considering their role and
involvement, the petitioners are not entitled to get bail on
merits. We have taken note of the period of custody before
granting bail on ground of period of custody, it is appropriate
to direct the trial court to record the statement of at least
material witnesses.
28. In case of Zeba Khan Vs. State of UP reported as 2026
INSC 144, while considering the bail application in a case
where there was forgery and falsification of record, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail
granted by the High Court.
29. Herein, the entire examination of Sub-Inspector recruitment
was scrapped as there was mass scale rigging and paper
leak. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the
petitioners accused on any of the ground mentioned by
learned Senior Advocate and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners-accused.
30. Considering role and involvement of all four accused Abhay
Singh, Kamlesh Kumar, Ganpatram and Subhash Muwal,
they are not entitled for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of
BNSS.
31. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence
are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:21859] (18 of 18) [CRLMB-1158/2026]
facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicants in the
crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence
collected so far, this is not a fit case to grant bail the
applicants accused.
32. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and
circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the
bail applications of the applicant accused at this stage.
33. Accordingly, bail applications under Section 483 BNSS
preferred by the accused petitioners Sher Singh, Ashok
Kumar S/o Jeevanam, Chunaram, Anil Kumar Meena @
Sher Singh Meena, Harshvardhan Kumar Meena, Kunal
Chaudhary, Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi, Paurav Kaler and
Ashok Kumar S/o Jagmal Ram are hereby dismissed.
34. The bail applications under Section 482 BNSS preferred by
the accused petitioners Abhay Singh, Kamlesh Kumar,
Ganpatram Bishnoi and Subhash Muwal, are hereby
dismissed.
35. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and fix the
case on day to day basis without any adjournment.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
6 to 18/MR
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 06:29:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:18:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
