The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to two accused persons for using a dummy candidate in a Civil Engineer Competitive Examination while highlighting the reality that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available.

The Appeal before the Apex Court filed by the State questioned the correctness of the final judgment of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to two accused in a case registed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah asserted, “In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available…Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.”

AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma represented the Appellant while AOR Jaydip Pati represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the Respondent (Indraj Singh) had compromised the sanctity of a public recruitment examination conducted by the Government, i.e., Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022. Another candidate had allegedly appeared as a “dummy candidate” in place of respondent Indraj Singh. The attendance sheet was allegedly tampered with, and another person’s photograph was affixed to the original admit card.

The police commenced an investigation, and both the accused persons were arrested. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail plea of the Respondents. Thereafter, vide a common judgment, the High Court allowed their bail pleas. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant-State approached the Apex Court with the plea to send the respondents back behind bars, leaving them to await the filing of chargesheet and the outcome of the trial.

Reasoning

Expounding on the law relating to the setting aside of an order of bail and highlighting that there exists a difference between setting aside an order of bail and cancellation of bail, the Bench said, “...the Trial Court had been correct in denying bail to the respondents herein. Considerations by the High Court of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but the Court while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society.”

“Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail”, the Bench held.

Observing that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Bench held, “let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent - accused have indeed not committed any crime in law.” Allowing the appeal, the Bench further added, “The view taken hereinabove, however, has been taken keeping in view the overall impact of the alleged acts of the respondent-accused and its effect on society.”

The Bench thus ordered, “Let the respondent-accused surrender before the concerned Court in two weeks from today. With the trial in progress, it shall be open for the accused to apply afresh, for bail, before the appropriate Court, after examination of material witnesses, to be decided on its own merits accounting for all attending facts.”

Cause Title: The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 341)

Appearance:

Appellant: AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocate Amogh Bansal, AOR Nidhi Jaswal, AOR

Respondent: AOR Jaydip Pati, Nishant Bishnoi, Advocate Srishti Prabhakar

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Ahsanuddin Amaah

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.