logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 340 print Preview print print
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

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.

 
  CDJLawJournal