-1- CGHC010360562026 2026:CGHC:40722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1530 of 2026 Khileshwari Sahu (Smt. Khileshwari Manjhi) D/o Shri Tapeshwar Sahu Aged About 42 Years Permanent R/o Village Madeli, Ps And Tehsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, C.G. Current R/o Through Her Husband Mahendra Kumar Manjhi, Ward No. 19, Behind Sahu Samaj, Khariyar Road, Tehsil And District- Nuapada, Orissa ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 17/09/2026 1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.8 of 2012 registered at Police Station- Mainpur, District- Gariyaband (CG) for offence punishable under Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.18 14:38:27 +0530 -2- Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Krishna Kumar Sahu lodged a complaint alleging that during the year 2006–07, recruitment for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was conducted by Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur. It was alleged that certain ineligible candidates secured appointments by submitting applications along with forged documents, thereby depriving eligible candidates of the opportunity of appointment. On the basis of the said complaint, a detailed investigation into the recruitment process was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Gariyaband. During course of the investigation, it was found that the present applicant was also amongst the persons who had secured employment by submitting a forged Higher Secondary certificate. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR was registered on 12.01.2012. However, prior to registration of FIR, applicant has resigned from service on 26.06.2011. Applicant performed love marriage on 27.06.2012 and residing in State of Odisha in her matrimonial home. Because of her love marriage all the relationship with her parents and other family members have been broken and therefore they are not aware about whereabouts of the applicant. As after the marriage, applicant is residing in another State, she was not aware about the registration of crime against her. He also submits that 24 -3- persons have been made accused. After trial, 19 accused persons have been acquitted, 2 died and 2 were declared absconding including applicant. Applicant had not absconded but could not appear before the concerned authority or could not be traced as she has shifted to another State. Therefore, she may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that there is allegation against the applicant that she procured employment by submitting forged mark sheet. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that 19 accused persons, under the same crime number, have been acquitted based on the copy of judgment filed by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application. 7. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer -4- arresting her on her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :- “(i) that the applicant shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) the applicant 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer.” Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen