- (1.) This bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.12/2014 registered at police station CID, Jaipur District CID (SOG) for the offences under section 4/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. The said report has been lodged by Vidhyadhar Singh Dudi, Police Inspector (SOG), Rajasthan, Jaipur, which reads as under: 1636426-1
(2.) In other words, the case of the prosecution against the accused petitioner is that despite of the fact that his daughter was to appear in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2011, he, who was Chairman of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, had visited the press where the question papers were printed and had illegally done proof reading and made noting from the question papers. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the main examination of RJS were to be held on 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th March, 2013 and the petitioner had, prior to the said examination, visited Surya Offset and Security Printers, Ahmedabad. He had asked the owner of the press Mudesh Purohit to make available the manuscript of the papers and proof print of all the four papers which the owner of the press had provided to the petitioner. The petitioner had then made some noting on his pad to which the owner of the press objected. Earlier the petitioner had himself informed the Principal Secretary (Personnel) on 01.03.2013 about appearance of his daughter in the aforesaid and desired to keep himself away from it. Consequently, a Member of the Commission was given the charge to complete the process of the examination. Earlier also, on 16.12.2011, a letter had been sent by the petitioner to Shri B.M. Sharma, the then Chairman of RPSC, expressing the desire to keep himself away from the RJS Examination, 2011. The daughter of the petitioner Kumari Reshma Khan was selected in the said examination and secured 10th position. The preliminary enquiry made by the Inspector, along with relevant material, was then submitted to the authorities for further action and thereafter the instant report was lodged.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused has not committed any offence and the instant report has been falsely lodged against him. Further he has submitted that the first information report has been grossly delayed. The alleged incident took place on 16.03.2013 whereas the report has been lodged on 02.10.2014. He has also submitted that had the petitioner gone to Ahmedabad, his mobile location would have been found at that place. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the owner of the press, there are restrictions in visiting the press. Any person who visits the press, an entry is strictly made in a register with all relevant details about him, such as date, time etc.. It has also been argued that if the accused had visited the press, then there ought to have been his footage in the CCTV cameras which were installed inside it. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and is holding a high status in the society that he may be granted pre-arrest bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Javedbhai Gafarbhai Vadgama Vs. State of Gujarat- Special Criminal Application (Direction) No.4265/2014 decided n 13.10.2014 and Javidbhai Gafarbhai Vadgama Vs. State of Gujarat- Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No.15148/2014 decided on 15.10.2014.;