1 2025:CGHC:11378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 486 of 2025 1 - Sunil Kumar Jangde S/o Chandulal Jangde Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kurdi Thana Balodabazar District - Balodabazar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Magarlod District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 07/03/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.124/2011 registered at Police Station – Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120 (B) of IPC and Section 3(9) (4) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that In 2007-08, the District 2 Panchayat Magarlod published an advertisement for recruiting 149 Shiksha Karmi Class III posts. To scrutinize applications, an evaluation committee and selection committee were formed. However, CEO K.K. Tiwari and the committees allegedly manipulated the selection process by inflating candidates' marks, accepting fake certificates, and tampering with government documents. This resulted in ineligible candidates being appointed, while eligible ones were denied positions. A case (No. 124/2011) was registered at the Magarlod Police Station under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. Despite the passage of 13 years, the prosecution has not filed a charge-sheet. Recently, the SDOP Kurud District Dhamtari sent a notice to the petitioner, directing him to produce his D.Ed. certificate. The petitioner replied that he had obtained the certificate during his service, but the police officer was not satisfied and sought to arrest him. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was subsequently dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He goes on to submit that no direct evidences relates the applicant in this case and he has been implicated in this case on mere suspicion. The First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) was registered against the applicant after a lapse of four years from the date of incident, the reasons for such delay is not explained by the respondents and as yet the charge-sheet has also not been filed. Therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail. To buttress his submission learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nilkanth 3 Sinha and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 1 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and supported the bail order passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie the case is made out against the appellant, for scrutinizing applications, an Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee were formed and the Committees allegedly manipulated the selection process by inflating candidates' marks, accepting fake certificates, and tampering with government documents. As a result, ineligible candidates being appointed, while eligible ones were denied positions. Thereafter, the SDOP Kurud District Dhamtari sent a notice to the petitioner, directing him to produce his D.Ed. Certificate. then petitioner replied that he had obtained the certificate during his service. It is apparent that on the basis of fake B.ed certificate he has obtained bonus marks. Looking to the gravity of offence and also taking into consideration the Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC & ST Act’) it necessary to quote Section 18 of SC & ST Act which is reproduced herein below:- “18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.” 7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant is not maintainable under the law and the application is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Sunil Kumar Jandge involved in Crime 1 CRA No.1385 of 2022 decided on 03.11.2022 4 No. 124/2011, registered at Police Station- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120 (B) of of IPC and Section 3(9) (4) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 9. In the meanwhile, Registry is also directed to return the certified copy of the orders/Annexures to counsel for the appellant after attained the photocopies of the same. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saxena