1 2025:CGHC:51490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1598 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar Markam S/o Shri Shiv Govind Markam Aged About 36 Years R/o H.No.62, Ward No.1, Tahsil Chowk, Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Mohd. Farhan S/o Shri Shamsuddin Aged About 36 Years R/o -2 A- 56, Ward No.09, Bishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Line, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.10.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik 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 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.15 19:33:25 +0530 2 420, 468 of the IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, registered an FIR against the applicants and others pursuant to the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the JMFC on an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The allegations in the complaint state that the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, vide advertisement dated 23.02.2011, invited applications for the post of Sub-Engineer to be submitted before VYAPAM in the prescribed OMR Form. The advertisement specified essential conditions, including that aspirants must possess the minimum required qualifications and a valid registration certificate with the employment exchange. It is alleged that the present applicants did not fulfill these essential conditions but nevertheless submitted their OMR Forms, marking “Yes” against the columns concerning minimum qualification and valid enrollment with the employment exchange, appeared for the examination, and were subsequently selected for the post of Sub- Engineer. The aforesaid conduct of the applicants allegedly constitutes the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC, leading to the registration of the FIR against them at Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and are falsely implicated in the case in question. He further submits that applicant No. 1 is employed at the District 3 Panchayat, Bagicha, and applicant No. 2 at the District Panchayat, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, and both possess valid educational documents based on which they were lawfully appointed. Their appointments were made with due approval from competent authorities, and the Department has itself found that neither the applicants nor the appointing officials are at fault, as the advertisement was ambiguous. The FIR was registered only after the JMFC’s order dated 09.08.2021, which merely directed investigation, the police, however, registered the FIR without conducting any inquiry. The essential ingredients of Sections 420 and 468 IPC are absent, as the recruitment was transparent and proper. The prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offences, there is an unexplained delay of over a year in lodging the FIR, and the applicants are sole breadwinners whose incarceration would cause irreparable hardship. Moreover, several co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bails by this Court in MCRCA No. 1460/2025, MCRCA No. 1457/2025, MCRCA No. 1462/2025, MCRCA No. 1459/2025 and MCRCA No. 1458/2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025 and 19.09.2025, copies of which are filed as Annexure A/3 with the present bail application in identical cases, placing the applicants on the same footing. In view of the doctrine of Parity, applicants deserves to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail also in the event of their arrest. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, but could not dispute the 4 fact that many co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present applicants is similar to that of the co-accsued. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, and further the fact that many co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by the this Court, copies of which are attached with the bail application and the case of the present applicants is similar to that of the co- accused, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Manoj Kumar Markam and Mohd. Farhan, on executing a personal bond with one surety (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) They should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. 5 (b) They should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicants and the sureties 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) They should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek