1 2025:CGHC:48994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1486 of 2025 1 - Heman Bhushan Dhariya S/o Shri Bhawan Ram Dhariya Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sendripali, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) (Surname Wrongly Mentioned In Bail Order And As Per Affidavit Surname Correctly Mentioned) 2 - Smt. Neelam Sen W/o Shri Sunil Sen Aged About 36 Years R/o Quarter No. 13b, Street 11, Sector-1, Bhilai, Tehsil Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Pallavi Bharadwaj W/o Shri Pushpraj Chatri Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Subhash Ward, Chiklakasa, Dallirajhara, Dondi, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Akansha Singh W/o Shri Vipin Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Shradha Kushwaha W/o Shri Narendra Maurya Aged About 36 Years R/o B-14, Sector-1, Agroha Society, Raipura, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Monika Chandrakar W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Sai Colony, Juna Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - B. Chandra Sekhar S/o B. Uma Maheshwar Rao Aged About 37 Years R/o H.No. 231, Station Road, Ward No. 11, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilai, Charoda, Tehsil Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.25 11:01:46 +0530 2 24.09.2025 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 - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution that as per the advertisement issued for the recruitment of Sub-Engineers, the essential conditions prescribed were that the candidates must possess the minimum qualification of Degree/Diploma in Engineering and must have a valid and alive registration certificate with the Employment Exchange. The present applicants, despite not fulfilling the essential eligibility criteria, submitted the OMR Forms and falsely marked “Yes” in the column relating to minimum qualification and valid registration with the Employment Exchange. Thereafter, the applicants appeared in the examination and were further selected for the post of Sub-Engineer. It is alleged that by suppressing material facts and by furnishing false information in the OMR Form, the applicants have dishonestly and fraudulently obtained appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer. Hence, their act attracts the provisions of Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, an FIR has been registered at Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur. 3. That, the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case; they were appointed only after obtaining due approval from the competent authorities, and even the departmental 3 enquiry found that neither the applicants nor the appointing authority were at fault, as the advertisement itself was unclear; the FIR has been registered only pursuant to the order dated 09.08.2021 of the learned JMFC, Raipur, which merely directed investigation, but the police without proper enquiry straightaway registered the FIR after an unexplained delay of 11 years; several co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court; even if it is assumed that the applicants wrongly marked “Yes” in the OMR Form regarding minimum qualification and employment exchange registration, such an act at best would result in rejection of their candidature and does not attract criminal liability; the applicants are the sole breadwinners of their families and continued custody would cause grave hardship; there is no cogent evidence against them, and even on the face of the allegations, no offence is made out for framing of charge and there is every likelihood of acquittal; the applicants are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title with movable and immovable property, hence there is no likelihood of absconding, 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 the material available in the case diary, it is submitted that the applicants had participated in the recruitment process. Though the 4 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 – Heman Bhushan Dhariya, Smt. Neelam Sen, Smt. Pallavi Bharadwaj, Smt. Akansha Singh, Smt. Shradha Kushwaha, Smt. Monika Chandrakar & B. Chandra 5 Sekhar , 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