ORDER : 1. These four bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 0013/2024 dated 08.04.2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and section 66D of the Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, hence same are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 08.04.2024, Satnam Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police, SOG, Jaipur submitted a written report, which runs as under: On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR bearing no. 13/2024 dated 08.04.2024 was registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), ATS & SOG under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act. 3. Mr. Vipin Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner/Rakesh Kumar Sharma submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and he is not running any printing press or works therein and he is not having any connection with co-accused who is supposed to provide false certificate and medals to the candidates. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is also not having any connection with the examination in question. Counsel further submitted that the Police has completed its investigation against the petitioner and now no recovery is pending against the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that there is no recovery from the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid matter; the petitioner has no relation with the alleged offence and the learned Court blow did not consider the same and dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.04.2024 and the trial of the case will take its own time to conclude. Hence the accused petitioner may be released on bail. 4. Mr. Ashish Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner/Pradeep Kumar Sharma submitted that there are no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed any such alleged offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case by the police without any connecting and corroborating evidence and he is an innocent person. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case by the police without any connecting and corroborating evidence and he is an innocent person. Counsel further submitted that no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act is made out against the petitioner from the bare perusal of the F.I.R. as well as from the evidence came on record during investigation so far. Counsel also submitted that in this case the present petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. as an accused; there is no any allegation against him; he has no concern with the alleged crime and there is no evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged crime. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence of cheating and has not prepared any such alleged forged documents. Further, in this case, no any victim person has lodged the F.I.R. the petitioner has not received any amount from any person and no any private person has lodged any F.I.R. and no allegations have been against the petitioner, but during investigation, the police has falsely implicated and arrested the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the police has almost completed the investigation and hence, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted for any purpose as now nothing is to be recovered or to be investigated from him. Counsel also submitted that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by Magistrate and the investigation as well as trial of the case will further take long considerable time. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.04.2024. The trial of the case will take its own time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. Mr. Virendra Godara, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner/Mandeep Kumar submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no role has been assigned by him. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not an Appointing Authority of the complainant but he is simply a UDC. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no role has been assigned by him. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not an Appointing Authority of the complainant but he is simply a UDC. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner did not verify the degree of the complainant; he did not issue any fake degree and nothing has to be recovered from him by the investigating agency. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a Government Servant, he has falsely been implicated in this case and the present false, concocted & baseless F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant just to harass and humiliate the petitioner, otherwise, the allegation levelled against the petitioner are totally false and concocted and no such incident has taken place, as alleged by the complainant. Counsel also submitted that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed any such alleged offences punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.04.2024 and the trial will take a substantial time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. 6. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner/Jagdish Saran submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person; he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has no relation to the present case directly or indirectly. Counsel further submitted that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed any such offence punishable with death and imprisonment for life. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is a Government Servant and only the allegation against him is that he used to help the new recruits in getting the desired place of work. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no direct or indirect connection or concern in the said case. Counsel further submitted that from the prima facie observation of the said FIR it is clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the said case, rather he has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion and the petitioner has falsely been made an accused and has been trapped in this case. Counsel further submitted that from the prima facie observation of the said FIR it is clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the said case, rather he has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion and the petitioner has falsely been made an accused and has been trapped in this case. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was never given any notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other notice; he was suddenly arrested without giving any notice and without giving him the right to present his side, due to which it is also clear that he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Senior Assistant (UDC) in Shri Karni Government Higher Secondary School, Deshnock, District Bikaner. Counsel also submitted that the job of the petitioner is not to provide degree/certificate to anyone, so in such a situation the question of providing fake degree/certificate by the petitioner, does not arise, which also makes it clear that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submitted that the present case has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than three years from the date of release of the final list of selected candidates of the said examination and therefore, the present FIR has been lodged with an inordinate delay and that the said delay has also not been explained in the said F.I.R. This proves that there is an ulterior motive behind lodging the said FIR and that the petitioner has been implicated in a false and fabricated case. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not a designated accused in the FIR and has no relation in the present case directly or indirectly. The only allegation as set out against the petitioner in the FIR is that he used to help new recruits in getting them their desired place of work or posting. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the present matter and also no evidence which can prove that the petitioner is even remotely associated with the other accused in the matter. Counsel further submitted that no recovery has been made from the petitioner which shows that he was connected in the said matter. Counsel further submitted that no recovery has been made from the petitioner which shows that he was connected in the said matter. Counsel further submitted that the investigating agency has failed to establish direct evidence against the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the name of the petitioner has falsely been dragged in the present matter, as he was not even involved in the incident and had nothing to do with it, still he was implicated under the said offences. Counsel also submitted that any confessional statements or allegations of the co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is against another accused is not admissible under the law if no corroborative evidence is present to back that confession. Counsel further submitted that it is clear from bare perusal of the FIR that there are no allegations against the petitioner that he has done any act which falls under Section 420 & 120-B of IPC, moreover, the essential ingredient to prove Section 420 of IPC is that the accused has committed the offence of cheating, thereby, dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. Counsel also submitted that bare perusal of the FIR makes it clear that the petitioner has not committed any act of cheating or has not deceived any person to deliver some property. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and there is no antecedent against him. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the accused petitioners are in regard to providing forged mark-sheets and Degrees of B.P.Ed., Librarian and other Courses of the back-dates from the different Universities and also to arrange sitting of dummy candidates in place of original one. He also submitted that bail applications of co-accused Rakesh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar has since been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the present accused petitioners is on similar footings to that of above-named co-accused persons whose bail applications have been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations against the accused petitioners, it is in the interest of justice to dismissed their bail applications. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations against the accused petitioners, it is in the interest of justice to dismissed their bail applications. 8. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the entire material made available to the Court including charge-sheet and status report by the Investigating Officer. 9. The participation of the candidates with the forged mark-sheets, certificates, sports certificates in the recruitment process and the instances of dummy candidates in place of original candidates in the recruitment/competitive examination is not only a crime by a particular person but it has hampered the complete recruitment process and also the claims of the genuine candidates for recruitment/appointment for government employment. The allegations levelled against the accused petitioners are of serious and grave nature. 10. On considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail. 11. Accordingly, all these bail applications are dismissed. 12. However, the accused petitioners would be free to file fresh bail applications after trial court passes order in regard to framing of charges. 13. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case files.