1 2025:CGHC:53718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2109 of 2025 1 - Aasni Sahu W/o Shri Rajendra Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sakri, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2141 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Lohardih, P.S./tehsil Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2135 of 2025 1 - Nisha Nishad W/o Shri Rajkumar Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Pachri Para, Kurud, P.S, Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station, Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 2 CRA No. 2116 of 2025 1 - Sadhna Sahu W/o Shri Haldhar Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Megha, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2112 of 2025 1 - Tinku Ram Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Nagar Panchayat Magarlod P.S. Magarlod District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Out Of Jail) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Prosecution ) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2113 of 2025 1 - Urmila Sahu D/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Gobranayapara Rajim, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2134 of 2025 1 - Ghanshyam Dhruw S/o Shri Bhansingh Dhruw Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Sonewara, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari C.G. (Surname Of The Applicant Is Wrongly Mentioned As Sahu Instead Of Dhruw In The Impugned Order) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari C.G. --- Respondent(s) 3 CRA No. 2078 of 2025 1 - Ishwari Nirmalkar D/o Shri Sitaram Nirmalkar Aged About 38 Years R/o Bazar Chowk Ward No. 11, Magarlod, P.S. Magarlod, District Dhamtari, C.G. 2 - Vidya Sahu W/o Shri Vinayprakash Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Peeperchhedi, District- Dhamtari, C.G. 3 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Dhelu Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Parevadih, P.S. Arjuni Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station Housed Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2066 of 2025 1 - Smt. Manjoo Kosariya D/o Chhedan Ram Khuter Aged About 39 Years W/o Shri Vikas Kosariya, R/o Village Senchuwa, P.S. And Tah. Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Present R/o Vill- Bhaismundi, P.S. And Tah. Magarlod Dist- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2054 of 2025 1 - Smt. Poonam Sonwani D/o Chaitram Sonwani, W/o Late Shri Saurabh Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 02 Nagri, P.S. And Tah. Nagri, Present R/o Vill- Ward No. 06 Nagri, Post Nagri, P.S. Nagri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 4 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2055 of 2025 1 - Smt. Usha Gayakwad W/o Shri Jaiprakash Gayakwad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Borsi, Post- Borsi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2068 of 2025 1 - Harishankar Sahu S/o Shri Gaitram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Hasda P.S. Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2056 of 2025 1 - Kishore Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Yogeshwar Kumar Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kuruskera Post - Sursabandha, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (District Name Of Applicant Is Wrongly Mentioned As Raipur Instead Of Gariyaband In The Impugned Order) 5 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. Ravindra Sharma, along with Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu and Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocates For Respondent/ State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional A. G. and Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. Since all the bail applications are arising out of the same crime number therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. These criminal appeals 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 appellants against the orders dated 29.09.2025, 25.09.2025, 01.10.2025, 23.09.2025, 08.10.2025 respectively 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”). 3. 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- 6 accused were members of selection committee of Janpad Panchayat, Magarload. The appellants 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. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent, they have not committed any crime and they have been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas they were not only responsible for entire selection process and appointment of candidates as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. They 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. They 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. 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 appellants hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. They 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 appellants are permanent resident of Tahsil 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 the complaint was not filed for commission of any offence under the Special Act. It does not 7 disclose commission of any offence under the Special Act. In support of contention, they 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 appellants 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. 5. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the allegations made against the present appellants, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. He however does not dispute the fact that other co-accused against them similar allegations are there, have already been granted bail by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also gone through the documents appended with appeal. 7. On 16.10.2025 Complainant- Krishna Kumar Sahu appeared through VC and objected for grant of bail to the appellants. His objection is recorded. 8. 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 appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail on each of them 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) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required. (b) 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 or to any police officer, (c) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious 8 trial, (d) After filing of the charge-sheet, they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. (f) If any of the conditions is violated by the appellants, the State / complainant will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. 9. 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. 10. It is directed that appellants 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: 2025.11.04 17:10:48 +0530