Jaipur, September 1, 2025. — A single-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain) on Monday disposed of multiple bail petitions arising out of FIR No. 10/2024 registered at the Special Police Station (SOG), ATS and SOG, relating to alleged large-scale leakage and sale of question papers in the Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2021.
In a detailed, reportable common order the Court considered 53 accused arrayed in the same FIR — charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992, and Section 66-D of the IT Act — and adjudicated their bail pleas together for reasons of convenience and judicial economy.
The offence, the Court noted, involved alleged procurement and commercial sale of the Sub-Inspector question paper (priced, as per material placed before the Court, between ₹ five lakhs and ₹ twenty lakhs in several instances), and the investigation identifies an organised racket with alleged involvement of handlers, dummy candidates, middlemen and, in some instances, public functionaries.
What the Court held — approach and reasoning
Justice Jain conducted an item-by-item analysis of each accused’s role, antecedents, period of custody and the material placed on record by SOG. The judgment sets out the legal factors that guide the exercise of bail jurisdiction (gravity of offence, role of accused, antecedents, likelihood of tampering with evidence, impact on larger public interest, etc.), and then applies those factors to individual petitions.
The Court also remarked on the wider systemic consequences of the case, observing that the material suggests “widespread corruption with connivance and conspiracy at highest level” and lamented that the leak remained undetected for years — commenting that “the system has become not only corrupt but it has become rotten,” a fact that has shocked the State’s youth.
Noting particularly serious allegations against certain public functionaries, the Court used a vivid judicial simile while describing one RPSC member’s conduct — saying he had “played role just like ‘Dhritrastra’ in Mahabharat” — and treated such entries into public office with close scrutiny while deciding bail.
Orders — bail granted (selected names and terms)
After considering each case, the Court allowed bail to a group of accused named in paragraph 94 of the order and directed their release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order imposes the usual conditions: no tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; no repeat of criminal activity; and attendance at trial as required — with cancellation of bail on any breach.
The list of accused for whom bail was allowed (as set out in paragraph 94) includes, among others:
Sharwanram @ Sharwan Babal; Jairaj Singh; Sunil Kumar Beniwal; Manisha Siyag; Shyam Pratap Singh; Santosh; Indubala; Lokesh Sharma; Rajendra Kumar Yadav (S/o Dwarka Prasad Yadav); Vimla (W/o Gopiram Jangu); Shaitanaram; Ramuram Raika; Chammi Bai alias Sammi alias Samita; Monika; Arun Sharma; Arjun Kumar Parjapat; Kamlesh Dhaka; Mahendra Kumar; Indra/Indu Kumari; Varsha; Deepak Rahad @ Monu; Ajay Pratap Singh; and Buddhisagar Upadhyay (the order records Buddhisagar Upadhyay and then specifies the bail conditions).
(For exact names as printed in the order and their parentage/addresses, see paragraph 94 in the PDF.)
Orders — bail refused (full list)
Conversely, paragraph 96 of the order lists another set of accused whose bail applications were dismissed after the Court’s individual scrutiny. The Court specifically recorded that the bail petitions of the following accused are dismissed (verbatim as in the order):
Naresh Dan Charan S/o Shri Ratan Dan Charan; Harshvardhan Kumar Meena S/o Murari Lal Meena; Rinku Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Naval Kishore Sharma; Rajesh Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Dwarka Prasad; Sharwan Kumar Godara S/o Shri Birbal Ram Godara; Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ Raju S/o Shri Tejpal; Ashok Singh Nathawat S/o Rudaram; Vikramjeet Vishnoi S/o Shri Sagarram Vishnoi; Bhagirath Vishnoi S/o Shri Jaikishan; Tulchharam Kaler S/o Asharam; Gopal @ Gopal Saran S/o Paburam; Somesh Godara S/o Jagram Godara; Gamaram alias Ghamaram Khileri S/o Poonmaram; Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh Meena S/o Gopal Meena; Omprakash Dhaka S/o Shri Kishnaram; Bhupendra Saran S/o Paburam; Narpatlal S/o Shankraram; Vijendra Kumar Joshi S/o Madanlal Joshi; Madanlal S/o Shri Radhakishan; Sandeep Kumar Lata S/o Kanheyalal; Ramkhiladi Meena S/o Tejram Meena; Paurav Kaler S/o Om Prakash Jat; Virendra Meena S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Meena; Hanumanaram S/o Shri Kaushlaram; Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Foosaram; Swaroop Chand Meena S/o Shri Ramkishan @ Kishan Lal; Kundan Kumar Pandya S/o Late Shri Dinker Pandya; Ramniwas Vishnoi S/o Sukhram Vishnoi; Aditya Upadhyay S/o Shri Buddhisagar Upadhyay; and Purushottam Dadhich S/o Mahaveer Prasad Sharma — are hereby dismissed.
(The order sets out the individual reasons — role, antecedents, connection with handlers/middlemen, prior cases and other material — for refusing bail to each of the above; those reasoning paragraphs appear earlier in the judgment.)
Procedural directions and signature
The Registry was directed to place a copy of the order in each file and to send a copy to the trial court by e-mail. The order is signed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain.
The judgment is lengthy and granular: the Court balanced established legal principles on bail with the exceptional social interest at stake — the sanctity of public recruitment examinations — and therefore granted bail to a subset of accused whose lesser role, absence of financial involvement or custodial period justified release, while refusing bail to others who the material showed had deeper involvement in the organised racket. The order contains both pointed judicial criticism of systemic failures and a meticulous, individualised application of bail law.
