The Supreme Court recently overturned the Rajasthan High Court's decision to grant bail to two individuals accused in a case involving a dummy candidate appearing for a public recruitment examination.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that such actions could create "possible chinks" in public faith in the 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.
The Supreme Court made these observations while hearing the Rajasthan government's appeals challenging the bail granted to accused Indraj Singh and Salman Khan by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court.
According to the prosecution, Singh had compromised the integrity of the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022. Khan had allegedly appeared as a ‘dummy candidate’ in Singh’s place. Upon Khan’s arrest, authorities reportedly recovered a ₹10 lakh cheque given to him by Singh.
The trial court had initially denied bail to both accused. However, the High Court later granted them bail, citing the fact that no appointments had been made following the examination and that there was no conclusive proof that Singh had arranged for Khan to appear as a dummy candidate.
In its judgment dated March 7, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the denial of bail was justified.
“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 noted that thousands of candidates had appeared for the exam, while the accused, for their own gain, attempted to undermine its integrity.
By doing so, they potentially harmed many sincere candidates who had worked hard in hopes of securing a job, the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court ruled that the bail granted to the accused should be set aside, emphasizing that they must stand trial and prove their innocence.
The accused were therefore directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and were given the option to reapply for bail only after the examination of key 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.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy