Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Hanuman Prasad S/O Gyarsilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:30757]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 10528/2026
CNR: RJHC020620772026 | URN: CRLMB / 19524U / 2026
Hanuman Prasad S/o Gyarsilal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village
Bilota, Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk. (At Present Confined
At Jail, Tonk).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami with
Mr. Garvit Saraswat
Mr. Jay Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Public Prosecutor
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
06/08/2026
1. The instant fourth bail application has been filed under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in
connection with FIR No.164/2024 registered at Police Station
Kotwali Tonk, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 3/10 of
the Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of
Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 and Sections 419, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
2. Earlier first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 21.10.2024. The second bail
application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 23.05.2025 and his third bail application was also
dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.07.2025.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:16:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30757] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-10528/2026]
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
after rejection of third bail application, the accused-petitioner has
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.14698/2025. He further submits that though the
Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere in the order of rejection
of bail application however, a liberty was granted to the petitioner
to renew his bail application before the trail Court, after six
months, in the event that the trail does not proceed further, in
which case the order of rejection of bail application, passed by the
trial Court and the High Court will not stand in the way. Learned
counsel further submits that after passing of the order by Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 27.11.2025, the trial of the case has not
proceeded as there is requirement to proceed with the trial in view
of incarceration of the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel further
submits that on 2-3 occasions, the prosecution has sought
adjournment for getting completion of examination of material
witness-Naman Sharma. Thereafter, the matter is pending for
orders on an application submitted by the co-accused and no any
other witness has been examined so far.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner
is in custody since 08.07.2024 and the allegation against him is of
sitting as dummy candidate for appearing in the competitive
examination in place of actual and original candidate. Learned
counsel also submits that the original candidate Ramlal has
already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
10.07.2024.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:16:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30757] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-10528/2026]
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed
the bail application and submits that the accused-petitioner who is
a public servant is involving in such like matter is very grave and
serious and he is facing trial of other criminal cases of similar
nature apart from three other cases as mentioned in the rejection
bail order.
6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused
the material made available on record.
7. The accused-petitioner is said to be in custody since
08.07.2024 and till date, out of total 37 prosecution witnesses,
only 1 witness has been examined in part. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 while dismissing the Special
Leave to Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of
rejection of bail application by this Court, has granted liberty to
the petitioner to renew his bail application before the trial Court,
after six months, if the trial does not proceed further.
8. The petitioner has placed on record the order-sheets of the
learned trial Court. On perusal of the order-sheets, it is revealed
that trial of the case is not proceeded step ahead on account of
various reasons though, the same is not attributed to the accused-
petitioner.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC
40 vide para 42 and 43 has observed as follows:-
“42. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail
custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:16:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30757] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-10528/2026]Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or
arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is:
whether the same is possible in the present case.
43. There are seventeen accused persons. Statements
of witnesses run to several hundred pages and the
documents on which reliance is placed by the
prosecution, are voluminous. The trial may take
considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants,
who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the
period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not
in the interest of justice that the accused should be in
jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence
alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms
of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by
itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants
on bail when there is no serious contention of the
respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would
interfere with the trial or temper with evidence. We do
not see any good reason to detain the accused in
custody, that too, after the completion of the
investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.”
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Manish Sisodia
Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (in Criminal Appeal
No.—-/2024) arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8781/2024,
decided on 09.08.2024 has observed as follows:-
“34. In this respect, we may also gainfully refer to one of
the recent pronouncements by a bench of this Court to
which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a member in the
case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)4,
which reads thus:
“21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the
most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under
Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:16:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30757] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-10528/2026]Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right
has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of
decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following
observations made by this Court in the case of Roy
V.D. v. State of Kerala3:–
“7. The life and liberty of an individual is so
sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be
interfered with except under the authority of law.
It is a principle which has been recognised and
applied in all civilised countries. In our
Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of
life and personal liberty not only to citizens of
India but also to aliens.””
38. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement5
was considering an application of the petitioner therein
who was SLP(Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024 to
receive a bribe of rupees five crore and from whom, an
amount of Rs.46,00,000/- was already recovered. In the
said case, the petitioner was arrested on 26th January
2022 in connection with FIR No. 402/2021 registered
against him for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 120B of IPC and Section 4/6 of the Rajasthan
Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,
1992. He was released on bail by this Court vide order
dated 18th January 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was
arrested by the ED on 21st June 2023. The Court
observed thus:
“7. Adverting to the prayer for grant of bail in the instant
case, it is pointed out by learned counsel for ED that the
complaint case is at the stage of framing of charges and
24 witnesses are proposed to be examined. The
conclusion of proceedings, thus, will take some
reasonable time. The petitioner has already been in
custody for more than a year. Taking into consideration
the period spent in custody and there being no likelihood(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:16:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30757] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-10528/2026]of conclusion of trial within a short span, coupled with the
fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the predicate
offence, and keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the rigours
of Section 45 of the Act can be suitably relaxed to afford
conditional liberty to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.”
11. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances
of the case and so also the fact that only one that too in part, out
of total 37 prosecution witnesses, examined so far and the
accused-petitioner is in custody for last about 2 years, this Court
without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the
case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner
on bail.
12. Accordingly, this fourth bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
named above shall be enlarged on bail provided, he furnishes a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two
sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the
dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
2/Ashish Kumar
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:16:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
