The Legal Scrutiny of Bail Cancellation in Public Examination Fraud Case

Case Name: The State of Rajasthan Vs. Indraj Singh & Ors

Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Nos.16156-16157/2024

Date: March 07, 2025

Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

The case is focused on the allegations of examination fraud in the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022 particularly in the State of Rajasthan. The accused, Indraj Singh, allegedly facilitated a dummy candidate to appear on his behalf for the examination, further forging the attendance records and manipulating official documents intentionally. The Co-accused Salman Khan was allegedly involved in the financial transactions related to the fraud, with police recovering a cheque of ₹10 lakh issued by Mr. Indraj Singh. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur (Metropolitan II) denied bail to both of the said accused, citing the severity of the offense and its impact on public trust as a whole. However, the Rajasthan High Court granted bail on the grounds that:
No appointments were made from the examination that was conducted.
Conclusive evidence against the accused was lacking.
The accused had no prior criminal records.
They had already undergone two months in custody.
Aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan filed an appeal before the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail, arguing that the High Court overlooked the seriousness of the offense.

ISSUES

 

1. If in the given case the High Court committed a mistake in granting bail despite the gravity of the alleged offense?
2. If in this case, the alleged actions of the accused warranted continued custody?
3. Whether the Supreme Court could set aside the High Court’s bail order in the said case based on the legal precedents?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC – The Offenses related to cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
2. Sections 3 & 10, Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022 – The Prohibitions on fraudulent activities in public examinations.
3. Section 439, CrPC – The Discretionary power of the courts in granting bail..

 

ARGUMENTS

 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. The accused compromised the sanctity of a public recruitment examination, thereby also affecting thousands of genuine candidates.
2. Bail was denied by the trial court, and the High Court made a mistake in overturning it without considering the societal impact as a whole.
3. The case law supports that bail should not be granted in cases of serious fraud, as it was also held in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. The accused had no prior criminal record against him and had already spent two months in custody.
2. There was no final appointment made due to the alleged fraud, mitigating its impact in the society. 
3. The High Court was correct in its discretionary power under Section 439, CrPC as held previously.

 

ANALYSIS

 

 The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court followed the judicial discipline in granting bail. It reiterated that bail orders must balance the personal liberty along with the public interest as a whole, and the High Court failed to assess the impact of examination fraud on the recruitment process in the said case. The Court relied on Ansar Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 974), distinguishing between setting aside bail orders and canceling bail based on new circumstances.

The Court further concluded that the High Court overlooked key aspects of the case, including:

The deliberate manipulation of a public examination process as the case was said to be.

The effect on thousands of candidates who appeared in the exam legitimately and their efforts.. The deterrence required to prevent systemic corruption in public recruitment system across the country.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The High Court’s order granting bail is set aside.
2. The accused (Indraj Singh & Salman Khan) must surrender before the trial court within two weeks.
3. The accused may file a fresh bail application after key witnesses are examined in the trial.
4. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This judgment reinforces the need for strict judicial scrutiny with regard to bail matters concerning examination fraud all over the country. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judicial discretion in bail matters should not undermine public confidence in institutional integrity as a whole. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the judgment upholds the principle that public interest outweighs individual liberty in cases involving large-scale fraud affecting governance structures in the country. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN