[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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.
(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
