1 2025:CGHC:45986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1379 of 2025 1 - Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu W/o Shailendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Korra, Post Korra, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Mohan Netam S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Netam Aged About 35 Years R/o H.I.G. 109, Housing Board Colony, Ratnabandha Road, Hatkeshar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Parajpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 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 - VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.10 19:07:35 +0530 2 Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that a complaint case under Section 156(3) Indian Penal Code was filed by one Bhartendu Kumar Kamal and the same was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur vide order dated 09.08.2021 and in the light of the said order an FIR against unknown persons has been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). It has been alleged by the complainant that during the course of recruitment for the post of Sub- Engineer (Civil) Grade-3 Executive conducted in 2011-12, certain persons have unlawfully obtained the job by submitting false information in their applications and has alleged large scale corruption in the entire recruitment process. That on the said allegation a FIR no. 225/2022 has been registered in Police Station Civil Line Raipur against the present Applicants co-accused under section 420, 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants respectfully submit that they have been falsely implicated in the present case despite having committed no offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. Their recruitment as Sub-Engineer (Civil) Grade-III Executive in 2012 was made after due verification of documents pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2011, which contained vague and unclear terms regarding educational qualifications, later clarified and relaxed by the Department itself. A detailed departmental enquiry in 2017 also concluded that the candidates were not at fault. The applicants have since been working 3 sincerely as regular employees with no antecedents. The FIR lodged in 2022, after an unexplained delay of 11 years by a third person lacking locus, does not disclose any credible material to attract Sections 420 or 468 IPC, as there was no cheating, forgery, or dishonest intention at the inception. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that today Writ Appeal No. 661 of 2025 has been filed by certain persons seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto on the ground that 89 selected candidates did not possess the requisite qualifications, and the rights of the eligible candidates were infringed, whereupon this Court called for a return from the State and also issued notice to the applicants as well as other similarly situated persons. The allegations are vague, motivated, and fail to establish the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. Co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court. The applicants, having clean antecedents, no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, and being law-abiding citizens, deserve protection as per the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception (State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, 1977). They are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 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. 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 4 the material available in the case diary, it is submitted that the applicants had participated in the recruitment process. Though the applicants possessed the requisite qualification, the same was 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 qualification 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 qualification 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. Learned counsel further submits that, 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. 1293 of 2025 vide order dated 26.08.2025. 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. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu & 5 Mohan Netam, 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. (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