1 2025:CGHC:61378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2233 of 2025 1 - Kumari Jitendari Yadav D/o Yogeshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 38 Years W/o Manish Yadu, R/o Gram-Bidhora, Police Station - Rajim, District- Raipur, Present Address Gram-Fhingeshwar, Thana - Fhingeshwar, District- Gariaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. AG and Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/12/2025 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 order PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.12.17 10:54:44 +0530 2 dated 25/09/2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Dhamtari (C.G.) whereby it has rejected application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. 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 & 201 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. 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 accused were members of selection committee of Janpad Panchayat, Magarload. The appellant along with other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and she got appointed in the selection process, who was 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. He 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. He also 3 submits 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. He submits that the police has not collected any evidence to connect the present appellants 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. He also submits that FIR was registered sometime in the year 2011 on the basis of complaint of unknown person and for the 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 a Teacher and is a permanent resident of block Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) and there is no possibility of being absconding or fleeing from the trial or tempering with the evidence. He submits that 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 his contention, he 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 submits that the co- accused with similar allegations have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr.A.No.1385/2022 order dated 03/11/2022 and also Cr.A.No.1826/2022 order dated 04/01/2023. He 4 submits that the appellant has been cooperating with the investigation for all these years and still working as Pradhan Pathak and she being a Govt. Servant is not expected to abscond, influence witnesses or tamper the evidence. 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. He however does not dispute the fact that other co-accused having similar allegations have already been granted bail by this Court. 5. As per the State Counsel, notice issued to the complainant is served, but he did not appear before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also gone through the documents appended with the appeal. 7. Considered the rival submissions made at the bar, considering 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 been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of Section 482 of B.N.S.S. to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The 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 her 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:- 5 (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 them from disclosing such 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 them 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 shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein-above. The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer for co-operating with the investigation on 05.01.2026. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Priyanka