Not An Isolated Incident But "Well-Orchestrated Racket": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Eight Accused In Teacher Paper Leak Case

The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to all eight accused charged under IPC, Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2022 in relation to paper leak of the examination for recruitment for Grade II Teachers. 

Justice Farjand Ali observed that the present case was not an isolated instance but a "manifestation of a well-orchestrated racket" aimed at subverting sanctity of public examinations.  It was held that given the involvement of multiple individuals out of whom many were yet to be arrested, there existed grave apprehension that granting bail to would significantly impede the ongoing investigation.

“Each apprehended individual has contributed to the discovery of fresh incriminating evidence, leading to further arrests and revelations. Given this evolving nature of the investigation, the premature release of any accused would not only jeopardize the collection of material evidence but may also embolden the principal perpetrators who remain at large.”

He further underscored that the nature of the offence strikes at the very core of meritocracy and fair competition and thus necessitates a stringent approach.

The Court further opined that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was not an absolute one and had to be harmonized with the exigencies of justice. To maintain the balance between the two interests, the Court ensured taking necessary measures and issuing appropriate direction for the trial to be conducted expeditiously without any unwarranted dilatory tactics.

It was stated that the granting bail was court's discretion which was a solemn judicial function that had to be exercised after a meticulous analysis of circumstances of each case. The Court opined that the societal repercussions of such offences were not confined to candidates but extended to the broader fabric of governance by infiltration of undeserving candidate into public institutions undermining administrative efficiency, ethical governance and public trust.

“The ramifications of such offences transcend beyond the immediate criminal act, striking at the very core of social equity and justice…The egregious act of leaking question papers not only subverts the fundamental principles of fair competition but also inflicts irreparable harm upon genuine aspirants who devote years of unwavering effort and perseverance to secure their rightful place in public service. The disillusionment engendered by such malpractices erodes public confidence in institutional mechanisms, fostering an environment of cynicism and despair among aspirants who rely solely on their merit.”

In this background, the Court held that the judiciary had to be cognizant of these societal considerations while adjudicating matters involving systemic fraud in public examinations. Given the evolving nature of investigation wherein every new arrest had revealed fresh incriminating evidence, premature release would jeopardize the investigation.

The Court also highlighted that such release also had the possibility of evidence tampering, witness manipulation, and further vitiating of process of law in which case, judicial conscience mandated that liberty of the accused shall be weighed against the larger interest of justice.

“…this Court is of the unequivocal opinion that the release of the petitioners at this stage would be antithetical to the interests of justice. The investigation is at a critical juncture, with substantial evidence yet to be unearthed and the principal accused still evading arrest. The overwhelming probability of the petitioners' release hampering the investigative process, coupled with the societal repercussions of such an offense, warrants a cautious and circumspect approach.”

Accordingly, the bail applications were rejected with directions to the trial court as well as the investigating agency to expedite the proceedings with no unwarranted adjournments and expeditious submissions of necessary evidence.

Title: Vijayraj v State of Rajasthan and other connected applications

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

Click Here To Read/Download Order