Raigarh (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1437 of 2025 1 - Smt. Santoshi Patel W/o Shri Prahlad Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o (C.G.) Raigarh District Village Kulba Tahsil Raigarh - 2 - Smt. Rakhi Patel W/o Shri Khirmohan Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o (C.G.) Village Nandeli Raigarh District Raigarh Tahsil -
Legal Reasoning
3 - Smt. Sangeeta Patel W/o Shri Bhneshwar Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o - Raigarh (C.G.) Village Sangitarai Raigarh District Tahsil 4 - Smt. Manjri Behra W/o Shri Sandeep Kumar Behra Aged About 35 Years R/o Shivdhari Colony, Maharaja Pratap Bai Ward Ambikapur District - (C.G.) Surguja VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.18 11:37:18 +0530 5 - Ku. Bindu Dansena D/o Shri Jivrakhan Dansena Aged About 35 Years (C.G.) District R/o Chhapora Raigarh Village - 6 - Smt. Shalinilata Toppo W/o Shri Yogesh Nikunj Aged About 35 Years R/o Nalapara 1 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Anjulata Kanwar W/o Shri Dinesh Kanwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Chhote Aatarmunda Tahsil Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 2 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the applicants, they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 225/2022 registered at Police Station – Civil Line Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of the IPC. 2. As per the impugned order as well as First Information Report (Annexure A/2) the applicants along with others on pursuance of order dated 09.08.2021 passed by JMFC on application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The allegations raised in the complaint that the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development vide advertisement dated 23.02.2011 invited applications for post of Sub Engineers which has to be submitted before VYAPAM in prescribed OMR Form. The essential conditions were that the aspirants should have minimum qualification and alive registration certificate with employment exchange. The present applicants were not met with the essential conditions of the advertisement but then also filled the OMR Form in which the present applicants had marked yes column where it is asked having minimum qualification and alive enlorment with employment exchange and gave the exams and further got selected for the post of Sub-Engineer. Therefore, the above act of the present applicants attracts the offence under section 420, 468 of I.P.C. and F.I.R. has been registered against the present applicant by the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipurm, thereby they committed offence u/s 420,468 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are 3 innocent and have been falsely implicated. No prima facie case is made out against them, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. The applicants were appointed only after due approval from competent authorities, and even the department itself has found that neither the applicants nor the appointing officials were at fault, as the advertisement was itself unclear. The FIR was lodged belatedly after an order of the learned JMFC, Raipur dated 09.08.2021, without any proper investigation, and suffers from an unexplained delay of 11 years. At the time of applying, the applicants were pursuing their degrees, which was permissible under the order of the Joint Secretary dated 17.11.2011. At best, the alleged irregularity could only have led to rejection of candidature, and does not constitute any criminal offence. Further, co-accused persons in the same case have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court on 09.09.2025 in MCRCA No. 1379 of 2025, and the applicants stand on identical footing. The applicants are permanent residents, with no possibility of absconding or tampering with witnesses, and undertake to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. In view of the above, the applicants may kindly be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the applicants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions 4 of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicants had participated in the recruitment process. Though the applicants possessed the requisite qualifications, the same were obtained only after the cut-off date, i.e., 23.03.2011. Upon receiving the complaint, a committee was constituted, which found that 89 candidates who were appointed did not possess the requisite qualifications as on the cut-off date. Consequently, an FIR regarding the said recruitment process was lodged by the State in the year 2022. It has further been pointed out that today, a Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 661 of 2025, entertained a petition filed by a person seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto on the ground that 89 selected candidates did not possess the requisite qualifications and that the rights of eligible candidates were infringed. The Court has called for a return from the State and has also issued notices to the applicants along with other similarly situated persons, insofar as the present criminal case is concerned, the applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, and therefore, this Court may be pleased to protect their personal liberty. It is also pointed out that a co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 1379/2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and it being made clear that the order passed in this petition shall not be treated as an observation on the merits of the case for the purpose of trial, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Smt. Santoshi Patel, Smt. Rakhi Patel, Smt. Sangeeta Patel, Smt. Manjri Behra, Ku. Bindu Dansena, Smt. Shalinilata Toppo & Smt. Anjulata Kanwar, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- threat (a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. or promise (b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav