2026:CGHC:25736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.A. No. 1483 of 2026 Lukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Santram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Budeni P.O. Bhentri P.S. Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 15.07.2026 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Special Act") has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the learned Special Judge 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 Special Act. 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. -2- 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 appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed any crime and he has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas he only was not responsible for entire selection process and appointment of candidates as Shiksha Karmi Grade- III. 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 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 further 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 -3- 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 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 residents of Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) and there is no possibility of his being absconding or fleeing from the trial or tampering 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 their contention, they relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others, (2020) 4 SCC 727. He further submits that other co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court in CRA No.1240 of 2022 on 2.11.2022 and CRA No.1385 of 2022 on 3.11.2022 and further in CRA No.2109 of 2025 and connected matters on 3.11.2025. 4. On the other hand, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent opposes the bail applications and submits that looking to the allegations made against the present appellant, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. He, however, does not dispute the fact that other co- accused, against whose similar allegations are there, have already been granted bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also gone though the documents appended with the -4- criminal appeal. 6. On 3.7.2026, complainant Krishna Kumar Sahu and victim Somkumari Kosle appeared through video conferencing and objected to grant of bail to the appellant. Their objection is recorded. 7. Considered the rival submissions made at the Bar, considering all facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) and also keeping in view that other co-accused against whom similar allegations are there have already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of Section 482 of BNSS to the present appellant. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty Thousand) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required, (b) He 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer, c) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, (d) After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial, -5- (e) He shall not involve himself 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. 9. It is made clear that the above observations are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein- above. 10.It is directed that the appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer for co-operating with the investigation on 25.7.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish