Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Kumar Kaushik vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13803
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2699 of 2026
Hemant Kumar Kaushik S/o Arun Kaushik Aged About 35 Years Posted
As Assistant Statistical Officer, Office Of The Regional Deputy
Commissioner Of Land Records, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
A.C.B. / E.O.W. Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
23.03.2026
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station- A.C.B. / E.O.W. Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is posted as an Assistant Statistical Officer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), it is alleged that in connection with the Departmental Promotion Examination for the post of Revenue Inspector, 2024, certain irregularities were committed relating to typographical errors, page setting, question paper setting and tampering of seals, in which the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, is alleged to be involved, it is further the case of the prosecution that a five-member committee was constituted to inquire into the said irregularities in the Revenue Inspector Departmental Examination, 2024, held on 16.01.2025, and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the said committee, a complaint was lodged before the concerned police station, pursuant to which an FIR was registered on 17.11.2025 against the applicant and other co-accused persons under the relevant provisions of law, and during the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested on 20.11.2025, hence, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any act which would justify his conviction under the alleged sections. He further submits that similarly situated co- accused, namely, Virendra Jatav has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 in MCRC No. 2359/2026 and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Leena Dewangan and Premlata Padmakar have already been 3 granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 22.01.2026 and 22.01.2026 in MCRCA Nos. 48/2026 and 1971/2025 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 20.11.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail as well as anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused persons were involved in the said crime, but other accused, namely, Virendra Jatav has already been granted regular bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 in MCRC No. 2359/2026 and other co-accused persons, namely, Leena Dewangan and Premlata Padmakar have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.01.2026 and 22.01.2026 in MCRCA Nos. 48/2026 and 1971/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet 4 has been filed in the present case, the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is jail since 20.11.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant - Hemant Kumar Kaushik, involved in Crime No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station- A.C.B. / E.O.W. Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan