| |
CDJ 2026 SC 340
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.17743 of 2025] |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Parties : Priyanka Goswami Versus State of Rajasthan\\r\\n |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondent: ------ |
| Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 120-B
- Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992, Sections 4, 5 & 6
- Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Section 66D
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Anticipation of arrest
- Appeal
- Release on bail
- Inducement, threat or promise
3. Summary:
The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellant’s bail application. The appellant, charged under IPC offences (419, 420, 120‑B), the Rajasthan Public Examination Act and IT Act 66D, sought bail in anticipation of arrest. The appellate court, after hearing counsel, held that the appeal merits acceptance and set aside the lower court’s order. It directed that if the appellant is arrested, she shall be released on bail with conditions imposed by the trial court. The order also prohibited the appellant from influencing witnesses. The observations were clarified as not being findings on the merits. The appeal was consequently allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur by the impugned judgment and order dated 16th September, 2025, has dismissed the appellant's prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest.
3. Appellant figures as an accused in FIR No.10 of 2024 dated 03rd March, 2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Stations (SOG), District ATS and SOG under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. It is alleged in the FIR that from the possession of the main accused a diary was recovered which contains the names and details of several persons including the appellant.
6. It is sought to be suggested that the appellant is a beneficiary of the illegal acts of the main accused.
7. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves acceptance and the appellant may be admitted to an order for release on bail in anticipation of arrest.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
9. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, she shall be released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
10. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to any police officer or to the court.
11. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail to the appellant in anticipation of arrest will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
|
| |
