1 2025:CGHC:43381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1293 of 2025 1 - Vividh Singh S/o Shri Bihari Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o I.E.S. Colony, Chhindgarh, District Sukhma (C.G.) 2 - Rajkishore Tigga S/o Late Mangal Sai Tigga Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 170/1, Kindo Gali, Near Shanti Bhavan, Patpariya, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Kamlesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhaisbod, Ward No.14, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Pradeep Baghel S/o Shri Khikram Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o I.E.S. Colony, Chhindgarh, District Sukhma (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.26 18:51:47 +0530 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. The case in brief is that, the police station Civil Lines, Raipur had registered FIR against 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, Raipur. The copy of F.I.R. is filed herewith as ANNEXURE A-2. 3 3. The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They were appointed only after due approval from the requisite authorities, and even the department itself has found that the applicants as well as the employee who made the appointments are not at fault, as the advertisement itself was unclear. The FIR has been registered only after the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur, which merely directed investigation before taking appropriate action; however, the police, without conducting any investigation, directly registered the FIR. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. At best, the allegation that the applicants marked “Yes” in the column relating to minimum qualification and enrollment with the employment exchange would only result in rejection of their candidature, but it does not amount to commission of any criminal offence. There is also an unexplained delay of 11 years in lodging the FIR. The applicants are permanent residents of the given address, have no intention of absconding, and are willing to cooperate fully with the investigation. They are the sole bread winners for their families, and continued incarceration would cause irreparable hardship. There is no evidence on record to justify their detention, and even if the allegations are taken at face value, no offence is made out for framing of charge, giving rise to every likelihood of acquittal. therefore, they prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the applicants. 4 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 of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, and the material available in the case diary, it is noted that the applicants are still in service and that the present FIR has been lodged after a delay of 11 years by one of the complainants, who is an RTI activist. It is further alleged that the applicants, after obtaining due permission, had participated in the examination as a special case. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Vividh Singh, Rajkishore Tigga, Kamlesh Chandrakar & Pradeep Baghel, 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:- (a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (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. 5 (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