1 2025:CGHC:4965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 749 of 2025 Savitri Aalendra D/o Ghanshyam Aged About 36 Years R/o Quarter No. 115 Ward No. 02 Rampur Camp Kirandul Thana Kirandul Distt. Dantewada C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Dantewada Distt. Dantewada C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 66/2024, registered at Police Station- Aarakshi Kendra Dantewada Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61, 318, 334, 336, 338 and 340 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that a skill examination was being conducted for the posts of Assistant Grade 3 and Stenographer in the Family Court, South Bastar, Dantewada. To grant undue advantage to the applicant and other candidates, the accused, Poonam, Chandra Yadav, and Dinesh Markam, entered into a criminal conspiracy. On 14.08.2024, at around 9:00 pm, they unlawfully entered the FTC Court premises where the answer sheets of the candidates were stored and tampered with the answer sheets, which subsequently led to changes in the candidates’ marks. It is further alleged that Ganesh Markam received Rs. 1,50,000/- from Preeti Netam in exchange for confirming her selection. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant has not committed any overt act as alleged and no evidence has been found against her, only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused persons, she has been made an accused, the alleged acts were committed by other co-accused persons, applicant, being a candidate in the concerned examination, had no knowledge of how her name was implicated, she has not done anything to compromise with the sanctity of examination. He also submits that no seizure has been made from present applicant, and there is no material evidence to establish her involvement in the alleged offence, applicant is a lady aged about 3 36 years and incarceration would irreparably harm her career and family, she in jail since 30.09.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the name of present applicant has come in light from the memorandum statement of co-accused persons, who were caught on the CCTV Camera, further a skill examination was being conducted for the posts of Assistant Grade 3 and Stenographer in the Family Court, South Bastar, Dantewada and to grant undue advantage to the applicant and other candidates, the accused, Poonam Chandra Yadav, and Dinesh Markam, entered into a criminal conspiracy. They entered into FTC Court premises where the answer sheets of the candidates were stored and tampered with the answer sheets, which subsequently led to changes in the candidates’ marks. She further submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Ganesh Markam received Rs. 1,50,000/- from Preeti Netam in exchange for confirming her selection, further the bail application of one of the co- accused persons, namely, Deepak Kumar Dewangan has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 in MCRC No.572 of 2025, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the name of present applicant has come in light from the memorandum statement of co-accused persons, who were caught on the CCTV Camera, applicant was a candidate for the post of Assistant Grade-03 in the Family Court, Dantewada, further considering the fact that a well-planned conspiracy was executed to unlawfully and improperly influence the skill examination for the posts of Assistant Grade-03/Stenographer (Hindi) in the Family Court, Dantewada by tampering with examinations for public service is a serious offence, if this crime had not been exposed, the applicant would have been selected in the said examination, thereby disqualifying genuinely deserving candidates who worked hard to compete fairly and the present applicant appears to have participated in corrupting the selection process and due to these people, the whole examination has been canceled, further the bail application of one of the co-accused persons, namely, Deepak Kumar Dewangan has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 in MCRC No.572 of 2025, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, as such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Savitri Aalendra, involved in Crime No. 66/2024, registered at Police Station- Aarakshi Kendra Dantewada Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61, 318, 334, 336, 338 and 340 of BNS, is rejected. 5 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil