ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused Gamaram Alias Ghamaram Khileri S/o Poonmaram, Ram Niwas Vishnoi S/o Sukhram Vishnoi and Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Foosaram, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.10/2024 registered at P.S. Special Police Station (SOG) District – ATS and SOG, for the offence under Sections 419 , 420 and 120B IPC and 4, 5 and 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and 66D of IT Act. 2. First bail applications of these petitioners were dismissed by this Court on 01.09.2025. The material on record indicates that after dismissal of the bail application on 01.09.2025 petitioner-accused Gamaram filed SLP No. 14985/2025, and the same was dismissed on 25.09.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the statement made on behalf of Ramnivas and Ramesh, no SLP has been preferred by them against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. They further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicants undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time, as charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon order dated 15.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 4045/2025, Shrawan v. State of Rajasthan , and Criminal Appeal No. 4046/2025, Vikramjeet Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan , submitted that two accused, Shrawan and Vikramjeet, were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also placed reliance upon order dated 09.10.2025 in Second Bail Application No. 12643/2025, Vijendra Kumar Joshi v. State of Rajasthan , passed by this Court and submitted that after the order in Criminal Appeal No. 4100/2025, Aditya Upadhyay v. State of Rajasthan , passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court granted bail to Vijendra on the ground of parity. He further submitted that referring to order dated 16.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 4099/2025, Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan , and in Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2025, Ram Khiladi v. State of Rajasthan , after dismissal of bail on 01.09.2025 these accused were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel has also referred to order dated 23.05.2025 in the case of Suresh Sahu v. State of Rajasthan , SLP (Criminal) No. 3413/2025 , passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bunch of petitions and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to the accused considering the period of custody and the nature of sentence. 5. Learned counsel further referred to order dated 21.08.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6945/2025, and order dated 10.10.2025 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4124/2025, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur and submitted that even in some identical cases, the investigation has been stayed to the extent of the petitioners who filed the Miscellaneous Petitions. 6. Learned counsel has further referred to order dated 06.11.2025 in Second Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14065/2025 titled as Babulal v. State of Rajasthan , and submitted that even this Hon’ble Court has granted bail on the ground of parity. 7. Learned counsel appearing for accused Gamaram submitted that the petitioner-accused was arrested on 11.07.2024 and is in custody in the instant case for the last 1 year and 4 months, though he has been in actual custody since 27.02.2023, when he was arrested in FIR No. 227/2022. He further submitted that the younger son of the petitioner is 100% blind and requires the support of his father and placed on record the Unique Disability ID issued on 24.06.2025. He also submitted that co-accused Om Prakash, Gopal, Somesh, Satyendra and Sandeep were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the case of the present petitioner is identical and even on better footing. He further submitted that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner introduced two candidates to Bhupendra Saran or prepared them for being sold before the examination. He submitted that except 4 criminal cases, no other case exists against the petitioner and in one case he has already been acquitted. He submitted that there is no allegation to substantiate his involvement in the instant case. 8. He submitted that except 4 criminal cases, no other case exists against the petitioner and in one case he has already been acquitted. He submitted that there is no allegation to substantiate his involvement in the instant case. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Ramnivas submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.04.2025 and that co- accused Vikram, Shravan, Madan, Ram Khiladi, Om Prakash, Gopal, Satyendra and Sandeep were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case of the petitioner is identical to them. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner helped Narpat Lal in arranging a dummy candidate. He further submitted that there is no evidence of any transaction between the petitioner and the dummy candidate. He submitted that on the basis of fabricated evidence, the petitioner was arrested and sent to custody. He also submitted that the parents of the petitioner are more than 75 years old and are dependent upon him. He further submitted that except 2 criminal cases, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. He also referred to order dated 12.08.2025 in FIR No. 85/2024 and submitted that the petitioner was granted bail by this Court. 9. Learned counsel on behalf of Ramesh submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner. He further submitted that he is neither a beneficiary nor directly involved in the incident. He referred to order dated 07.10.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2167/2025, passed by a Co- ordinate Bench at Jodhpur, and submitted that even the investigation against the dummy candidates was stayed. He also referred to bail granted to identically placed Suresh, Sahu and others and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by those cases where bail has been granted. 10. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the Special Public Prosecutor, who submitted that after dismissal of the bail applications on 01.09.2025, accused Gamaram filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. He further submitted that there are grave charges against all three petitioners and there is sufficient evidence to show their involvement. He referred to order dated 02.09.2025 in SLP (Criminal) No. 9506/2025, Rajeev Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan , and submitted that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not grant bail to him. He further submitted that there are grave charges against all three petitioners and there is sufficient evidence to show their involvement. He referred to order dated 02.09.2025 in SLP (Criminal) No. 9506/2025, Rajeev Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan , and submitted that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not grant bail to him. He also referred to State of Rajasthan v. Inder Raj , 2025 INSC 341 , and submitted that even the bail granted by the High court was recalled and cancelled by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties along with the Investigating Officer. 12. Fifty-three bail applications, including the present applications of petitioners Gamaram, Ramnivas and Ramesh, were dismissed by this Court on 01.09.2025. The role and involvement of these three petitioners is mentioned in the order dated 01.09.2025, and the same is reproduced as under: Item No. Case Details CRLMB Nos. Date of Arrest Role Assigned by SOG Criminal Antecedents 26 5083/2025 Ghamaram 11.07.2024 Paper Leak Gang-took 20 lakhs from Bhupender Saharan for solved paper leak. • Case no. 188/2015 under sections 420, 120B IPC and 3/6 Rajasthan Public Examination Act. • Case no. 06/2015 under sections 420, 467, 468, 201, 120B IPC and 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A Rajasthan Public Examination Act. • Case no. 243/2015 under sections 420, 120B IPC and 3/6 Rajasthan Public Examination Act. • Case no. 227/2022 under sections 419, 420, 120B IPC and 3, 4, 6, 6A Rajasthan Public Examination Act. 46 9033/2025 Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi 02.05.2025 Dummy Candidate Accessibility- took 18 lakhs and made available dummy candidate for Om Prakash Bishnoi who got selected. • Case no. 494/2021 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. • Case no. 216/2021 under sections 419, 420, 384, 120B IPC. • Case no. 11/2025 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 Rajasthan Public Examination Act. 50 10173/2025 Ram Niwas Vishnoi 10.04.2025 Dummy Candidate User- suspended third grade teacher who used dummy candidate. • Case no. 85/2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 3, 4, 6 Rajasthan Public Examination Act. 13. We are considering the bail application of Gama Ram, which was dismissed by this Court considering that the present applicant has been named as one of the gang members having connivance with Bhupendra. • Case no. 85/2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 3, 4, 6 Rajasthan Public Examination Act. 13. We are considering the bail application of Gama Ram, which was dismissed by this Court considering that the present applicant has been named as one of the gang members having connivance with Bhupendra. There are four other criminal cases relating to compromising the sanctity of public examinations, out of which three related to public examinations held in the year 2022. After dismissal of the bail application, Gama Ram approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 25.09.2025. The trial court has dismissed the bail application of the present petitioner on 15.10.2025. There is no circumstance sufficient to consider the bail application on the ground of parity or on any other ground raised by the petitioner. As per the counsel, the younger son of the petitioner is 100% blind and the unique card is also placed on record, but the same is not sufficient to grant bail, particularly when the SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The grounds raised in support of Gama Ram and also the bail orders in favour of Om Prakash Gopal, Somesh, Satyendra and Sandeep are not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2024, though in another case he is in custody since 27.04.2023, but still the SLP was dismissed against the order dated 01.09.2025, therefore, there is no ground to consider the bail application of the present petitioner. 15. Another accused, Ramnivas Vishnoi, was working as Teacher Grade-III and as per SOG, his involvement is shown as facilitator and also as a candidate. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner was granted bail in one case by this Hon’ble Court and others having identical cases, namely Vikramjeet, Shrawan, Madanlal, Ram Khiladi, Gopal, Om Prakash, Somesh, Satyendra and Sandeep, were granted bail. The allegation against the present petitioner is also to engage Hanumana Ram (RAS) as a dummy candidate. 16. The material on record as referred by learned counsel also indicates that the present petitioner has secured lesser marks. The evidence on record is for involvement as facilitator and there is not much difference between the case of Gama Ram and Ramnivas. The allegation against the present petitioner is also to engage Hanumana Ram (RAS) as a dummy candidate. 16. The material on record as referred by learned counsel also indicates that the present petitioner has secured lesser marks. The evidence on record is for involvement as facilitator and there is not much difference between the case of Gama Ram and Ramnivas. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has referred to the case of Rajiv Vishnoi (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also not allowed bail in identical circumstances, therefore, the grounds referred in favour of the present petitioner are not sufficient to grant bail to him. 17. The third accused is Ramesh, who is in custody since 02.05.2025, and he has been identified as a middleman/handler involved in compromising the sanctity of public examination. As per SOG, three criminal cases were registered against Ramesh Kumar. The grounds mentioned by the counsel are not sufficient to consider the role and involvement of the present petitioner. 18. A Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, has stayed investigation qua certain accused in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6945/2025, 2167/2025, 1058/2025 and 4124/2025, and we have considered the order passed by the Coordinate Bench. This Court has allowed the bail application of Vijendra Kumar Joshi after grant of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of certain cases. Similarly, we have allowed bail application of Babulal on the ground of parity. 19. In the case of Shahrukh vs. State of MP , Criminal Appeal No. 1289/2023 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court has to consider the ground of parity in bail matters, and similarly placed accused having identical role, involvement and circumstances can seek bail on the ground of parity, but this is not a rule of automatic bail. The duty is cast upon the Court to examine the actual role, criminal record and specific facts about each and every accused. 20. Having considered the material available on record and also the material as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that after dismissal of bail of Gama Ram, he approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Criminal), but the same was dismissed. Now, the dismissal order has its effect upon the other accused Ramesh and Ramnivas, having identical cases. Now, the dismissal order has its effect upon the other accused Ramesh and Ramnivas, having identical cases. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has referred to the order of recalling of bail in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Inder Raj Singh (Supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicants in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants accused on bail. 22. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail applications of the applicants accused at this stage. 23. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Gamaram Alias Ghamaram Khileri S/o Poonmaram, Ram Niwas Vishnoi S/o Sukhram Vishnoi and Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Foosaram, are hereby dismissed.