ORDER : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNS S on behalf of accused-applicants. The accused- applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No. 18/2025 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar District Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 318 (4), 61(2)(A) of , Section 43 , 46 of IT Act and Section 10 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Illegal Means) Act, 2024 and as per order, under Section 3 18 (4) , , 66, 66C of IT Act, Section 3 , 4, 8, 10(1)(2), 11 (1) of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Illegal Means) Act read with Section 61 (2) of . 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submit that applicants are in age group of 25-10 years approximately. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and applicants are in custody ever since January, 2025. There are no criminal antecedents registered against the applicants. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 10216/2025 titled as Praveen Yadav Vs. State of Raj. , wherein in the similar facts, applicants have been granted bail, considering the period of incarceration undergone therein and charges having been framed. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCRLMB No. 1372/2025 titled as Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj . wherein in similar facts, co-accused have been granted bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and has relied upon the ratio encapsulated in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9041/2025 titled as Jorawar Singh Meena Vs. State of Raj. wherein under similar facts, the bail application was dismissed. It is submitted that present are the cases of the organized crimes. It is also submitted that upon conviction a fine upto Rs. 1 crore and custody for a period of 5-10 years was imposed. Howsoever, it is fairly conceded that there are no criminal antecedents registered against the accused-applicants. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, this Court notes the following:- (i) that applicants are in age group of 25-10 years and they are bread earners of their families and have their entire life in front of them. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, this Court notes the following:- (i) that applicants are in age group of 25-10 years and they are bread earners of their families and have their entire life in front of them. (ii) that charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed and trial will take time. (iii) that Apex Court under similar circumstances has allowed the bail application of one of the co-accused, considering the period of custody i.e. running from January, 2025 onwards. 6. This Court also notes that provisions of Section 10 -11 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Illegal Means) Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2024') and the mandate of Act, 2024, raise a serious contentions qua unfair means, which alleged against the accused. Same is reiterated as under:- "10. (1) Any person or persons resorting to unfair means and offences under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine up to ten lakh rupees. In case of default of payment of fine, an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed, as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Provided that until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is brought into force, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall be applicable in place of the said Act. (2) The service provider shall also be liable to be punished with imposition of a fine up to one crore rupees and proportionate cost of examination shall also be recovered from such service provider and he shall also be barred from being assigned with any responsibility for the conduct of any public examination for a period of four years. (3) Where it is established during the investigation that offence under this Act has been committed with the consent or connivance of any Director, Senior Management or the persons in-charge of the service provider firm, he shall be liable for imprisonment for a term not less than three years but which may extend to ten years and with fine of one crore rupees. In case of default of payment of fine, an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Provided that until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is brought into force, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall be applicable in place of the said Act. (4) Nothing contained in this section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under the Act, if he proves, that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. 11. (1) If a person or a group of persons including the examination authority or service provider or any other institution commits an organized crime, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees. In case of default of payment of fine, an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Provided that until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is brought into force, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall be applicable in place of the said Act. (2) If an institution is involved in committing an organized crime, its property shall be subjected to attachment and forfeiture and proportionate cost of examination shall also be recovered from it." 7. It is noted that youth to earn quick money, prima facie are involved in use of unfair means in public examinations in an organized manner, being hand in glove with different stake holders. 8. It is noted that youth to earn quick money, prima facie are involved in use of unfair means in public examinations in an organized manner, being hand in glove with different stake holders. 8. Considering that bail is an equality between the right of liberty; that “bail is a right and jail is an exception” as directed in the ratio encapsulated in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay : (1977) 4 SCC 308 ; that the applicants are young persons; that the co-accused is enlarged on bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Praveen Yadav (Supra) ; that the applicants have been in custody ever-since January 2025, and taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, however, without commenting upon the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant the bail applications of the accused-applicants and enlarge them on bail, subject to following conditions:- (i) As section 11 of Act of 2024 states that a fine upto Rs. 1 Crore can be imposed, this Court is of the view that as prima facie offence is made out, bank guarantee of Rs. 10 Lacs be deposited by the applicants (individually), prior to the release. (ii) Applicants shall periodically mark their attendance at the concerned Police Station once in every two months on 5th of every month at 11.00 AM. (iii) Applicants shall contribute to the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan – initiative of the government, for a period of two months from the date of enlarging on bail, on two hours per day basis, as an honorary work, under the supervision and directions of the SHO qua the FIR (Supra) in consonance with the directions of the Municipal Corporation/Local Administrative authorities concerned. 9. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed along with aforementioned conditions and it is ordered that accused-applicants 1. Ankit Kumar S/o Amar Chand Pooniya, 2. Tinku Choudhary @ Guruji S/o Suvalal Choudhary, 3. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Sudhir Lamba, 4. Sumit Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, 5. Balbeer S/o Manglaram, 6. Kashmeer Jhajhdiya S/o Sh. Nemi Chand, 7. Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Pramod Kumar & 8. Ankit Kumar S/o Amar Chand Pooniya, 2. Tinku Choudhary @ Guruji S/o Suvalal Choudhary, 3. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Sudhir Lamba, 4. Sumit Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, 5. Balbeer S/o Manglaram, 6. Kashmeer Jhajhdiya S/o Sh. Nemi Chand, 7. Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Pramod Kumar & 8. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ramkaran, shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.40,00,000/-(Rupees Forty Lacs) with two sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. 10. A copy of present order be placed in the connected applications.