The Supreme Court recently set aside the bail granted by Rajasthan High Court to two accused in a case of a dummy candidate having appeared in a public recruitment examination [The State of Rajasthan v Indraj Singh Etc.]..The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such acts represent “possible chinks” in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.“In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, 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,” the Court said..It made the observations while hearing Rajasthan government’s appeals challenging the grant of bail to accused Indraj Singh and Salman Khan by the Jaipur Bench of High CourtAs per the prosecution, Singh had compromised the sanctity of the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022.Khan had allegedly appeared as a ‘dummy candidate’ in place of Singh. When Khan was arrested, it allegedly led to recovery of a cheque of ₹10 lakh given to him by Singh..The trial court had denied the duo the bail. However, the High Court later allowed their bail pleas, considering that no person had been appointed after the examination and that there was no conclusive evidence to show that Singh had made Khan appear as dummy candidate.In the judgment dated March 7, the top court said the trial court was correct in denying bail to the accused. “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,” it said. .The Court opined that there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam.This way they possibly affected so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, the Court added.Hence, the Court concluded that the bail granted to accused deserved to be set aside and the accused should stand trial and prove they were not involved in the offence.Thus, the accused were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and apply for apply bail once again after examination of material witnesses in the trial.“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,” the Court said..Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma with advocates Amogh Bansal and Nidhi Jawal represented the State of Rajasthan.Advocates Jaydip Pati, Nishant Bishnoi and Srishti Prabhakar represented the accused. .[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court recently set aside the bail granted by Rajasthan High Court to two accused in a case of a dummy candidate having appeared in a public recruitment examination [The State of Rajasthan v Indraj Singh Etc.]..The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such acts represent “possible chinks” in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.“In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, 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,” the Court said..It made the observations while hearing Rajasthan government’s appeals challenging the grant of bail to accused Indraj Singh and Salman Khan by the Jaipur Bench of High CourtAs per the prosecution, Singh had compromised the sanctity of the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022.Khan had allegedly appeared as a ‘dummy candidate’ in place of Singh. When Khan was arrested, it allegedly led to recovery of a cheque of ₹10 lakh given to him by Singh..The trial court had denied the duo the bail. However, the High Court later allowed their bail pleas, considering that no person had been appointed after the examination and that there was no conclusive evidence to show that Singh had made Khan appear as dummy candidate.In the judgment dated March 7, the top court said the trial court was correct in denying bail to the accused. “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,” it said. .The Court opined that there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam.This way they possibly affected so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, the Court added.Hence, the Court concluded that the bail granted to accused deserved to be set aside and the accused should stand trial and prove they were not involved in the offence.Thus, the accused were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and apply for apply bail once again after examination of material witnesses in the trial.“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,” the Court said..Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma with advocates Amogh Bansal and Nidhi Jawal represented the State of Rajasthan.Advocates Jaydip Pati, Nishant Bishnoi and Srishti Prabhakar represented the accused. .[Read Judgment]
