Supreme Court overturns bail in exam cheating case: State of Rajasthan vs. Indraj Singh (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 341

Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can the High Court’s grant of bail to accused individuals be challenged when they are accused of compromising the sanctity of a public recruitment examination? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh. The core issue revolves around allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy related to the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination – 2022. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, overturns the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan’s decision to grant bail to the accused, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of public examinations.

Case Background

The case originates from FIR No. 009, dated February 28, 2024, registered at the Special Police Station (SOG) District – ATS or MOG. The FIR alleges that Indraj Singh compromised the integrity of the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination – 2022. It was alleged that a “dummy candidate” appeared in place of Indraj Singh, and the attendance sheet was tampered with. The original admit card was also allegedly altered with another person’s photograph.

Following the registration of the FIR, the police commenced an investigation, recording the statement of the complainant, Mr. Ravi Kumar Vaishnav, Section Officer, Rajasthan Public Service Commission. They also obtained relevant documents, including the OMR sheet and the original admit card purportedly used by Indraj Singh and Salman Khan. Indraj Singh was arrested on March 1, 2024, and Salman Khan was arrested on March 2, 2024. Salman Khan’s arrest led to the recovery of a cheque for Rs. 10 lakhs, issued by Indraj Singh, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Indraj Singh’s initial bail application (No. 83/24) was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, Metropolitan II, on March 13, 2024. The court reasoned that Indraj Singh’s actions disrupted the system established by law, causing significant harm to the Government, administration, department, and the candidates participating in the examination.

Similarly, Salman Khan’s bail application (No. 114/24) was denied by the same court on April 4, 2024. The court found that Salman Khan, along with other co-accused persons, had engaged in a criminal conspiracy for financial gain by arranging for a dummy candidate to take the exam for another person. The court also noted evidence of financial transactions between Salman Khan and Indraj Singh.

Aggrieved by the denial of bail, both Indraj Singh and Salman Khan approached the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan. On May 8, 2024, the High Court granted them bail, leading to the State of Rajasthan’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. The relevant sections are:

• Section 419, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for cheating by personation. It states, “Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It stipulates, “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to forgery of valuable security, will, etc. It reads, “Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses forgery for the purpose of cheating. It states, “Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment of criminal conspiracy. It states, “(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”
• Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022: These sections pertain to offences and penalties related to unfair means in public examinations. (Details of these sections are not provided in the source document.)

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Rajasthan):

• The State argued that the High Court’s decision to grant bail should be overturned, and the accused should be sent back to custody to await the filing of the chargesheet and the outcome of the trial.
• The State emphasized the seriousness of the offense and its potential impact on society, arguing that the accused had compromised the sanctity of a public examination.
• The State contended that the High Court did not adequately consider the primary offense and its effect on society, even though it considered the lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody.
• The State highlighted that the actions of the accused undermined the faith of the public in the public administration and the executive.

Arguments by the Respondents (Indraj Singh and Salman Khan):

• The respondents argued in favor of the High Court’s decision to grant bail, emphasizing that they had no prior criminal records and had already spent approximately two months in custody.
• The respondents pointed out that no one had yet been appointed to the position for which the exam was held, suggesting that the alleged offense had not caused actual harm.
• The respondents claimed that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that Indraj Singh had arranged for Salman Khan to appear as a dummy candidate.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondents was justified, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on society.
2. Whether the Trial Court had been correct in denying bail to the respondents.
3. Whether the considerations by the High Court of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody were sufficient criteria for grant of bail, without adequately considering the primary offence and its effect on society.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

• Ansar Ahmad v. State of U.P. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 974]: The Court used this case to distinguish between setting aside an order of bail and cancellation of bail.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2020 2 SCC 118]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the power to grant bail under Section 439 CrPC is wide but must be exercised judiciously, balancing numerous factors.
• Ajwar v. Waseem [2024 10 SCC 768]: The Court referred to this judgment for the relevant parameters for granting bail, including the nature of accusations, gravity of the offense, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of public examinations and uphold public trust in the administration. The Court emphasized that compromising the sanctity of examinations affects numerous deserving candidates and undermines the fairness of the selection process. The potential impact on society weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s bail order.

Fact:Law

The court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%).

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The Trial Court was correct in denying bail, as the actions of the accused disrupted the system established by law and caused significant harm.
• The High Court’s considerations of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody were valid but insufficient to outweigh the primary offense and its effect on society.
• The reality in India is that there are far more applicants than available government jobs, and each job must be filled with absolute scrupulousness in the entry process.
• Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents, represents possible chinks in the faith of the people in public administration and the executive.

The Court quoted:

“Each job which has a clearly delineated entry process – with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof.”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Maintaining the integrity of public examinations is paramount to ensure fairness and uphold public trust.
• Courts must consider the broader societal impact of offenses when deciding on bail applications, especially in cases involving public trust and administration.
• Lack of criminal antecedents and time spent in custody are relevant factors but should not overshadow the seriousness of the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the concerned Court within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also stated that it would be open for the accused to apply afresh for bail before the appropriate Court after the examination of material witnesses, to be decided on its own merits accounting for all attending facts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts must consider the broader societal impact of offenses when deciding on bail applications, especially in cases involving public trust and administration. The judgment reinforces the principle that maintaining the integrity of public examinations is crucial for ensuring fairness and upholding public trust.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh underscores the importance of preserving the sanctity of public examinations and maintaining public trust in the administration. The Court’s emphasis on considering the broader societal impact of offenses when deciding on bail applications sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. The judgment serves as a reminder that the integrity of the selection process for public jobs must be upheld with absolute scrupulousness to ensure fairness and meritocracy.

Sentiment Analysis

Sentiment analysis helps to understand the emotional tone and subjective opinions expressed in the context of the case. Below are the sentiment scores for various aspects of the case: