Custody Cannot Be a Tool for Punishment Before Trial: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Rajasthan Public Exam Scam

Supreme Court Rejects State’s Plea to Ban Accused from Staying in Rajasthan. In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India granted bail to multiple accused arrested in connection with the Rajasthan public examination cheating scandal, invoking principles of personal liberty and fair trial. The Court, in Suresh Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and five connected matters, overruled the Rajasthan High Court’s denial of bail, observing that “custody cannot be indefinite where the trial is yet to begin.”

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi intervened after noting that several of the petitioners had been in custody for over a year, under charges ranging from impersonation and criminal conspiracy under the IPC, to cyber fraud under the Information Technology Act, and offences under the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and its 2022 Amendment.

The Supreme Court was dealing with six Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by Suresh Sahu, Gamma Ram Khilery, Anita Kumari, Pukhraj, Rajeev Kumar, and Ram Gopal, each accused of involvement in a sprawling public examination fraud where candidates used impersonators and technological devices to cheat in government recruitment tests.

The case stemmed from FIR No. 227/2022 (dated 25.12.2022) and FIR No. 10/2024 (dated 03.03.2024), lodged with the Special Operations Group (SOG) and ATS Rajasthan. Despite serious charges under Sections 419, 420, 120B IPC, Sections 3 to 10 of the Examination Act, and Section 66D of the IT Act, the accused had remained in judicial custody for extended durations—some exceeding 15 months—without the trial commencing.

Earlier, the Rajasthan High Court, in separate bail rejection orders between December 2024 and February 2025, had refused relief, citing the gravity of the allegations and possibility of tampering with evidence.

At the heart of the matter were the following legal questions:

• Should pre-trial detention continue when there is no immediate prospect of trial?

• Can the seriousness of charges alone justify prolonged incarceration?

• Whether a geographic restriction on residence during bail could be imposed?

The petitioners urged the Court to consider that “continued custody in the absence of trial violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution”, emphasizing their willingness to cooperate and abide by all conditions. The State of Rajasthan, in opposition, highlighted the organized nature of the offence, and urged the Court to impose a condition preventing the accused from residing in Rajasthan during the pendency of the trial.

The Court, after hearing arguments, made a clear and unequivocal observation:

“Considering the totality of circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since [relevant date], we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Trial Court.”

In each of the six cases, the Supreme Court noted that mere seriousness of the offence cannot override the constitutional protection of liberty, especially in the absence of progress in investigation or trial. The bench directed the Trial Courts to grant bail on appropriate conditions.

The Court underlined the responsibility of the accused to act with integrity post-release:

“It goes without saying that the accused would fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency during the trial for ensuring its expeditious adjudication.”

“The petitioner would maintain good conduct and not endeavour to influence any of the witnesses, in any manner, till the completion of the trial.”

Further, the Court required that the accused: “...shall not seek any unwarranted adjournment during trial and shall report to the Investigating Officer at least once a month, till such time the challan is presented for trial.”

The bench directed immediate production of the accused before the Trial Court to comply with formalities. It also left open the door for cancellation of bail in the event of non-compliance:

“In the event of any change of circumstance, it shall be open for the Trial Court to take steps for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.”

Most notably, the Court rejected the State’s request to prohibit the accused from staying within Rajasthan:

“Learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan insists that during the trial, petitioner be restrained from staying within the State of Rajasthan. We see no reason to impose such a condition in the instant case.”

This categorical dismissal of the State’s plea underscored the Court’s concern for proportionality in bail conditions, and a refusal to presume guilt before trial.

The Supreme Court’s series of bail orders mark a resounding reaffirmation of the principle that pre-trial incarceration is an exception, not the rule. In cases involving non-violent offences, especially where investigations are prolonged, the Court has signaled that liberty must not be sacrificed on procedural grounds.

In the words of the Court, “custody cannot be indefinite where the trial is yet to begin”—a principle that resonates across the criminal justice system and speaks directly to the constitutional mandate of fairness, liberty, and due process.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2025