Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:11378
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 486 of 2025
1 - Sunil Kumar Jangde S/o Chandulal Jangde Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Kurdi Thana Balodabazar District - Balodabazar (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Magarlod District -
Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judgment on Board
07/03/2025
1. This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, who is apprehending his
arrest 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 and 120 (B) of IPC and Section 3(9) (4)
of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that In 2007-08, the District
Panchayat Magarlod published an advertisement for recruiting 149
Shiksha Karmi Class III posts. To scrutinize applications, an evaluation
committee and selection committee were formed. However, CEO K.K.
Tiwari and the committees allegedly manipulated the selection process
by inflating candidates' marks, accepting fake certificates, and
tampering with government documents. This resulted in ineligible
candidates being appointed, while eligible ones were denied positions.
A case (No. 124/2011) was registered at the Magarlod Police Station
under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act.
Despite the passage of 13 years, the prosecution has not filed a
charge-sheet. Recently, the SDOP Kurud District Dhamtari sent a
notice to the petitioner, directing him to produce his D.Ed. certificate.
The petitioner replied that he had obtained the certificate during his
service, but the police officer was not satisfied and sought to arrest
him. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was subsequently
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He goes on to submit that
no direct evidences relates the applicant in this case and he has been
implicated in this case on mere suspicion. The First Information Report
(in short 'FIR') was registered against the applicant after a lapse of four
years from the date of incident, the reasons for such delay is not
explained by the respondents and as yet the charge-sheet has also not
been filed. Therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail. To buttress his
submission learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nilkanth
Sinha and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
application and supported the bail order passed by the learned trial
Court, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie the
case is made out against the appellant, for scrutinizing applications, an
Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee were formed and the
Committees allegedly manipulated the selection process by inflating
candidates' marks, accepting fake certificates, and tampering with
government documents. As a result, ineligible candidates being
appointed, while eligible ones were denied positions. Thereafter, the
SDOP Kurud District Dhamtari sent a notice to the petitioner, directing
him to produce his D.Ed. Certificate. then petitioner replied that he had
obtained the certificate during his service. It is apparent that on the
basis of fake B.ed certificate he has obtained bonus marks. Looking to
the gravity of offence and also taking into consideration the Section 18
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC & ST Act') it necessary to quote
Section 18 of SC & ST Act which is reproduced herein below:-
"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons
committing an offence under the Act."
7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the anticipatory bail
application filed by the appellant is not maintainable under the law and
the application is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the
bail application of applicant - Sunil Kumar Jandge involved in Crime
No. 124/2011, registered at Police Station- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
120 (B) of of IPC and Section 3(9) (4) of the SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, is rejected.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
9. In the meanwhile, Registry is also directed to return the certified copy
of the orders/Annexures to counsel for the appellant after attained the
photocopies of the same.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Saxena
