SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE BAIL ORDER IN EXAMINATION FRAUD CASE

Introduction

In this Case,The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh &Ors. Criminal Appeal No(s). ___ of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 16156-16157/2024)was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble JusticeSanjay Karol and JusticeAhsanuddinAmanullahon March 07, 2025.The case deals with the Supreme Court overturning the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to grant bail to individuals accused of manipulating a public examination by arranging a dummy candidate, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and its impact on public trust in recruitment systems.

Brief Facts of the Case

The case started when anFIRwas registered on 28th February 2024 at the Special Police Station (SOG) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. It was alleged that Indraj Singh (Respondent) had arranged for a dummy candidate to appear in the examination on his behalf. The investigation revealed that the attendance sheet was tampered with, and another individual’s photograph was affixed to the original admit card. During the investigation, the police obtained key documents, including the OMR sheet and the manipulated admit card. Respondent was arrested on 1st March 2024, followed by the arrest of Respondent Salman Khan on 2nd March 2024. A cheque of Rs.10 lakhs, allegedly given by Indraj Singh to Salman Khan, was recovered during the investigation under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Both Respondents had initially filed separate bail applications before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, Metropolitan II. In both instances, their bail applications were rejected due to the seriousness of the allegations. The Court emphasized that their actions were disruptive to the lawful recruitment system, causing harm to the Government, administration, and other candidates. Aggrieved by the denial of bail, both Respondents approached the Rajasthan High Court, where a common judgment granted them bail. The High Court’s decision was based on four primary grounds: (i) no appointments had been made as a result of the compromised exam, (ii) no conclusive evidence directly linked Indraj Singh to the arrangement of a dummy candidate, (iii) neither accused had any criminal antecedents and (iv) they had already spent two months in custody.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court’s decision to grant bail was justified.
2. Whether the Accused’s actions posed a significant threat to public trust in examination systems.

Contentions by Both Parties

Appellants (The State of Rajasthan)

Appellantsargued that the High Court’s decision to grant bail overlooked the gravity of the alleged offences. They emphasized that the Respondents actions had the potential to severely undermine public trust in the fairness of Government recruitment processes. The Appellant stressed that compromising the integrity of the examination system was a serious offence, especially given the number of affected candidates.

Respondents(Indraj Singh Etc.)

Respondents contended that there was no conclusive evidence proving their involvement in the fraudulent activity. They highlighted the fact that no appointments had been made as a result of the tampered exam and that they had no prior criminal records. The Respondents further submitted that they had already spent two months in custody, which justified the grant of bail.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Rajasthan, setting aside the High Court’s order that had granted bail to the accused. The Court emphasized that the gravity of the offence, involving tampering with a public examination, posed a serious risk to public trust in Government recruitment processes. The Court observed that while factors like lack of criminal antecedents and time spent in custody are relevant, they cannot outweigh the need to uphold the sanctity of public examinations. Since the Respondents alleged actions threatened to undermine the fairness of the system, the Court concurred with the Trial Court’s earlier decision to deny bail.

The Court further acknowledged the general principle that bail, once granted, should not ordinarily be revoked. However, in this instance, the Supreme Court considered the wider impact on society and ruled that the High Court’s decision was unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the Respondents to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks.

Conclusion

The Court clarified that the Respondents could reapply for bail before the appropriate court after the examination of material witnesses, ensuring that their rights to a fair trial were preserved.

Baddam Parichaya Reddy

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please find below the YouTube Link for” IMPORTANCE OF LIMITATION IN LAW” (Episode 59: The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82iCFvFsS6o