Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court that granted bail to two accused persons allegedly involved in compromising the integrity of a public recruitment examination. The division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the High Court erred in granting bail without adequately considering the broader impact of the alleged offence on society. The accused were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, with liberty to apply for bail at a later stage after the examination of key witnesses.

The case arose from an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the High Court's decision dated May 8, 2024, which had granted bail to the respondents, Indraj Singh and Salman Khan. Both individuals were accused in connection with FIR No. 009, registered on February 28, 2024, at the Special Operations Group (SOG) Police Station, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. The allegations pertained to the use of fraudulent means in the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Meticulous Examination Needed in Cases Where FIR Was Against Unknown Persons & Accused Are Not Known to Witnesses

According to the prosecution, the respondent, Indraj Singh, had arranged for a dummy candidate to appear in his place during the examination. The authorities alleged that the attendance sheet was tampered with and that another individual’s photograph was affixed to Singh’s original admit card. Investigating officers recovered key evidence, including the OMR sheet and the original admit card. The second respondent, Salman Khan, was alleged to have facilitated the fraudulent arrangement in exchange for a cheque of Rs. 10 lakh, which was later recovered during the investigation.

The respondents were arrested in early March 2024 and subsequently applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II. The trial court denied bail, citing the gravity of the offence and its potential ramifications on the recruitment system. It was observed that such fraudulent activities undermine public confidence in government examinations and adversely affect genuine candidates. However, the respondents later approached the Rajasthan High Court, which allowed their bail applications. The High Court reasoned that no appointments had been made based on the compromised examination, that there was no conclusive evidence of Salman Khan acting as a dummy candidate, and that neither accused had prior criminal records.

Challenging this order, the State of Rajasthan contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the impact of examination fraud on the integrity of public recruitment processes. The State urged the Supreme Court to revoke bail and remand the respondents into custody, emphasizing that the alleged offence directly affected public trust in competitive examinations.

The Supreme Court examined the parameters for setting aside bail orders, distinguishing between cancellation of bail and the review of a bail order for improper exercise of judicial discretion. The bench referred to Ansar Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 974), which held that while cancellation of bail typically requires supervening circumstances, an appellate court can set aside a bail order if it is found to be legally unsound. It also relied on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, which emphasized that courts must balance multiple factors, including the severity of the offence and its impact on public interest, when deciding bail applications.

The court observed that while bail decisions often consider factors such as prior criminal records and the period of custody, they must also account for the seriousness of the offence and its consequences. The judgment stated: "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."

Addressing the broader implications of the case, the Supreme Court underscored the need for maintaining the sanctity of public recruitment processes. It noted that government job examinations attract numerous candidates and that any compromise in their fairness can erode public confidence in administrative institutions. The judgment noted: "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."

The court also took into consideration the trial court’s finding that the accused had engaged in a conspiracy for financial gain, thereby harming the rights of other candidates. It held that allowing the respondents to remain out on bail at this stage could undermine the trial process. The bench concluded: "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."

Also Read: Complainant Can Be informed About Notice of Bail Hearing By SMS, WhatsApp; compliance of Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ ST Act : Rajasthan HC Instructs Police To Produce Proof/Screenshot

The court stated that its findings were limited to the issue of bail and should not influence the merits of the trial. It directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks while leaving open the possibility for them to seek bail at a later stage once key prosecution witnesses had been examined. The judgment concluded: "We clarify that the above observations are only for the purpose of examining the propriety of grant of bail and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the matter."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellant: Shiv Mangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondents: Ashwini Kumar Singh and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocates.

Case Title: The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 341
Case Number: S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 16156-16157/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

[Read/Download order]