1 2025:CGHC:54936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2174 of 2025 1 - Smt. Yukesh Sahu W/o Lokeshwar Nath Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Parsabuda, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed by appellant against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (ST/SC Act) Dhamtari (C.G.) whereby it has rejected application under Section 482 of BNSS 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, 471 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code (For Short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3(9)(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Special Act”). 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that recruitment process was carried out by Janpad Panchayat, Magarload sometime in the year 2007 for appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat, Magarload. At the relevant point of time, the co- accused were members of selection committee of Janpad Panchayat, Magarload. The appellant along with other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and had given marks to the candidates on the basis of forged / invalid documents and thereby increased the marks of the candidates, who were not deserving for the said appointment and by this act, deserving candidates have not been given appointment and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. FIR was lodged on the complaint made by the objector sometime in the year 2011 and investigation was carried out. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent, she has not committed any crime and she has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas she was not only responsible for entire selection process and appointment of candidates as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. She further submits that the due procedure as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Service) Rules, 1997 was followed and there were about 5000 applications received for appointment on about 172 posts. Thereafter, there was filtering process conducted by different committees. She also submit that there was Evaluation Committee. On the basis of mark-sheets and other testimonials submitted by the candidates and after filtration, a list was prepared and thereafter from 2-3 filtering process, ultimately selection list was prepared, which was subsequently approved by the Selection Committee which consists of 8 members. She submits that the police has not collected any evidence to connect the present appellant with the aforesaid crime and there is no evidence on record to suggest that the present appellant hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. She also submit that FIR was registered sometime in the year 2011 on the basis of complaint of unknown person and for last 4 to 5 years, there was no complaint whatsoever leveled by any candidate whose candidature was not considered or accepted by the Committee. The complainant with an ulterior motive has lodged the report, which has no basis and any substance. The appellant is permanent resident of Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) and there is 3 no possibility of being absconding or fleeing from the trial or tempering with the evidence. She submits the complaint was not filed for commission of any offence under the Special Act. It does not disclose commission of any offence under the Special Act. In support of contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Others, (2020) 4 SCC 727. Learned counsel for the appellant further submit that other co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court passed in CRA No.1240 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 and CRA No.1385 of 2022 dated 03.11.2022. 4. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the allegations made against the present appellant, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail. She however does not dispute the fact that other co-accused against them similar allegations are there, have already been granted bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also gone through the documents appended with appeal. 6. On 16.10.2025 Complainant- Krishna Kumar Sahu appeared through VC and objected for grant of bail to the appellant. His objection is recorded. 7. Considered the rival submissions made at the bar, considering the all facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) and also keeping in mind that other co-accused against whom similar allegations are there have already granted bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of Section 482 of BNSS to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:- (a) she shall make herself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required. (b) she 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 her from disclosing such 4 fact to the Court or to any police officer, (c) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, (d) After filing of the charge-sheet, she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (e) she shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. (f) If any of the conditions is violated by the appellant, the State / complainant will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. 8. It is made clear that these observations are only for the purposes of deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein-above. 9. It is directed that appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer for co- operating in the investigation on 25.11.2025. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.11 16:55:46 +0530