1 2025:CGHC:46899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1398 of 2025 1 - Ravishankar Sahis S/o Ramanuj Sahis Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 03 Bramhan Para Bhatgaon Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Yashakdatt Jyoti S/o Loknath Jyoti Aged About 35 Years R/o Kisan Para Pavron District Durg, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Sation Civil Line, District Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 12/09/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 225/2022 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 of IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the Police Station, Civil Line, Raipur KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 registered an FIR No. 225/2022 against the applicants alongwith other persons in compliance of order of JMFC Raipur on the application u/s 156(3) of CrPC. The allegations levelled in the complaint is that the department of panchayat advertisement and rural development dated vide invited with certificate 23.02.2011 applications for the post of Sub Engineers which was to be submitted before vyapam in prescribed OMR form. The essential conditions were that the applicants should have minimum qualifications the and live registration employment exchange. The present applicants did not possess essential qualification as required in the advertisement but they filled the OMR form in which the present applicants had marked S column, thereby the committed offence u/s 420 and 468 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that 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. Further 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 applicants has fairly submitted 3 that 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. He further submitst hat Co- accused namely Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu and Mohan Netam have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1379/2025 vice order dated 09.09.2025 and the applicants have no criminal antecedents no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that considering the allegation and nature of offence, their anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of the allegations, and the material available in the case diary and it transpires that the applicants had participated in the recruitment process. Though the applicants possessed the requisite qualification, the same was 4 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 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 along with other similarly situated persons. So far 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 have already been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 1293 of 2025 vide order dated 26.08.2025 and MCRCA No. 1379/2025, vide order dated 09.09.2025. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, and it is made clear that the order passed in this bail application shall not be treated as an observation on 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 – Ravishankar Sahis and Yashakdatt Jyoti on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be 5 released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicants 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) The Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicants 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 their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicants shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal