1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21st January, 2026, has rejected the appellant's application for bail.

3. Appellant was arrested on 2nd June, 2025 in connection with FIR No.10 of 2024 dated 3rd March, 2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), Jaipur District ATS and SOG under Section(s) 419, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section(s) 4, 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and Section 66-D of Information and Technology Act.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.

5. It appears that the charges are not yet framed though in excess of 100 (hundred) witnesses are proposed to be examined to drive home the charges against the appellant by the prosecution. The trial is, thus, likely to take substantial time to conclude.

6. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant need not be detained in custody any longer and that he could be admitted to an order for release on bail pending trial.

7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.

8. Appellant shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.

9. 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 the court.

10. In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

11. It is also ordered that the appellant shall diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless exempted. If he abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as breach of the conditions for grant of bail and the trial court will be free to pass appropriate orders.

12. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.

14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

15. Leave granted.

16. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, by the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 21st January, 2026 and 9th February, 2026, has rejected the appellants' applications for bail.

17. Appellants, Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ Raju and Manohar Singh, also figure as accused in FIR No. 10 of 2024 wherein Purushottam Dadhich is a co-accused.

18. The order passed by us allowing the appeal of Purushottam Dadhich in the criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1799 of 2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis insofar as these appellants, i.e., Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ Raju and Manohar Singh, are concerned.

19. The appeals of Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ Raju and Manohar Singh, accordingly, stand allowed on the same terms.