Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail Order In Alleged Public Examination Fraud

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals by the State of Rajasthan challenging a common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court (Bench at Jaipur) that had granted bail to two accused in an alleged large-scale public recruitment examination fraud. The appeals arose from S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.16156-16157/2024 and related to FIR No.009 dated 28 February 2024 registered at the Special Police Station (SOG) District – ATS or MOG under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC and Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals and quashed the High Court’s bail order. The Court held that while factors such as absence of criminal antecedents and duration of custody were relevant, the courts must not “lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society” and must scrutinise bail orders in serious offences to ensure they are not “unreasoned or perverse.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 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.” The Court further noted that “bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily,” but emphasised that superior courts may interfere where the grant of bail is “illegal or perverse” or where the gravity of the offence and societal impact were ignored.

Background

The prosecution alleged that respondent Indraj Singh arranged a “dummy candidate” to appear in place of him in the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Competitive Examination–2022, that attendance sheets were tampered with and another person’s photograph was affixed to the original admit card. The police recorded statements, seized the OMR sheet and admit card, and arrested Indraj Singh on 1 March 2024 and Salman Khan on 2 March 2024. Salman Khan allegedly caused recovery of a cheque for Rs.10 lakhs given by Indraj Singh. Trial courts initially denied bail, finding the alleged actions disruptive to the recruitment process and pointing to a criminal conspiracy for financial gain.

The High Court granted bail to both accused on the grounds that no appointments had been made pursuant to the exam, there was no conclusive evidence that Indraj Singh had made Salman Khan appear as a dummy candidate, both accused lacked criminal antecedents, the investigation had been completed and the custody period was about two months. The State challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court considered its precedents on the law of bail, including distinctions between cancellation and setting aside of bail (Ansar Ahmad), the need for judicious exercise of Section 439 CrPC (Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar), and guidance on factors relevant to bail in serious offences (Ajwar v. Waseem and P v. State of M.P.). Applying these principles, the Bench concluded that the Trial Court had correctly refused bail and that the High Court’s reasoning failed to give adequate weight to the primary offence and its societal impact. The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment of 8 May 2024 was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. The Court clarified that the observations were confined to bail propriety and not to merits, and permitted the accused to apply afresh for bail before the appropriate court after examination of material witnesses. Pending applications stood closed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 341 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.16156-16157/2024) Case Title: The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Rajasthan For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Senior Counsel; Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Counsel