Difference Between Rejection & Quashing of Bail Order

Bail – Grant of, by High Court, though denied by Trial Court – Challenged – Charges under Sections 419, 420, 467 Indian Penal Code and Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022 on the basis of FIR alleging that ‘I’ used a dummy candidate for Assistant Engineer (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022, attendance sheets and admit cards were tampered with – Co-accused ‘S’ was accused of facilitating the malpractice and receiving Rs. 10 lacs – Whether High Court was justified in granting bail. Held, High Court committed an error in granting bail, having disregarded the gravity of the primary offence and its far-reaching impact on society. The Court reiterated the paramount importance of preserving the sanctity of government recruitment examinations, which must remain fair, as fraudulent practices deprive meritorious candidates of their legitimate rights to equal opportunity. While the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle, the seriousness of the offence and its broader ramifications necessitate a cautious and balanced approach in considering bail. Bail cancelled, with liberty to apply for bail at a later stage.

HELD

Keeping in view the above pronouncements of law, we are of the view that 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. (Para 9)

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. (Para 11)

We are conscious of the fact that bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily, and we wholeheartedly endorse this view. 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. (Para 12)