The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to two men accused of procuring and using a fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) pass certificate to secure internship registration through the Rajasthan Medical Council [Piyush Kumar Trivedi vs State of Rajasthan].

In an order passed on May 15, Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed that it cannot remain oblivious to the increasing use of forged educational documents, mark-sheets, degree certificates and examination credentials to secure professional opportunities.

The Court said that such acts erode the sanctity of competitive examinations and affect genuine and meritorious candidates.

"Such acts not only strike at the very root of the sanctity and credibility of competitive examinations, but also seriously prejudice the rights of genuine and meritorious candidates who compete through lawful means," the Court observed.

It observed that such offences also have far reaching consequences upon public confidence in institutional and regulatory systems.

“In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available,” the Court added.

The Court was hearing bail pleas filed by two men, Piyush Kumar Trivedi and Shubham Gurjar, challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant them regular bail.

According to the prosecution, Trivedi had allegedly failed the FMGE several times and later conspired with co-accused Shubham Gurjar, Devendra Singh Gurjar and Bhana Ram Saini alias Bhanu to procure a forged FMGE certificate and fake roll number in exchange for money.

The forged documents were then allegedly used by Trivedi to secure internship counselling and complete his internship through the Rajasthan Medical Council.

The prosecution further claimed that verification by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) revealed that the roll number used by the accused belonged to another candidate.

Following the investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and impersonation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act.

Before the High Court, counsel for the accused told the Court that the petitioners had been falsely implicated due to personal disputes between Piyush Kumar’s family and the complainant.

It was further argued that Shubham Gurjar had been implicated solely based on statements made by co-accused persons, without any independent incriminating material against him.

However, the High Court concurred with the trial court’s view and refused to grant bail.

The Court said that the gravity of the allegations and the larger societal impact of such organised fraudulent activities weighed against the accused.

“Therefore, considering the gravity and nature of allegations, the manner in which the forged documents are alleged to have been prepared and utilized, as also the larger societal impact of such organised fraudulent activities but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail,” the Court said.

Advocate Jitendra Pandey with advocates Anil Kumar Sharma, Ketan Dhabhai, Amit Puri, Jai Kumar Jain, Keerti, Bhumika Goyal and Samarth Kumar Jain, represented the accused.

Public Prosecutor Shree Ram Dhakar appeared for the State.

[Read Order]