[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13712
1 MCRC-5460-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5460 of 2026
RAHUL KUMAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Jain - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection
with Crime No.74 of 2025 registered at Police Station - Cyber and High
Tech Crimes, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections
61(2), 316(4), 319(2), 339, 340(2), 338, 318(4), 318(2), 336(4) of the BNS
and Section 43,66,66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act. Sections
111, 238, 241, and 61 of the BNS and Sections 35,36 and 42 of the Aadhar
(Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act and Sections 3, 4 of the ParikshaAdhiniyam.
2. As per the prosecution case, It is alleged that such co-accused
persons acted as impersonators/solvers and appeared in the written
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13712
2 MCRC-5460-2026
examination on behalf of the original candidates in consideration of
monetary gain. After qualifying the written examination, the concerned
candidates themselves participated in and cleared the physical efficiency test
and were thereafter selected for the post of Constable (GD) at different
places in the State of Madhya Pradesh.During document verification, the
authorities allegedly noticed suspicious Aadhaar updates made immediately
before and after the examination, which led to the registration of an FIR and
arrest of certain candidates. During further enquiry, UIDAI authorities found
that some Aadhaar operators had violated prescribed rules and procedures;
consequently, a separate FIR bearing Crime No. 74/2025 was registered at
Police Station Cyber & Hi-Tech Crime, Bhopal, against such operators and
other co-accused persons.During investigation of the said crime, it surfaced
that the present applicant is alleged to have acted as a solver for candidates
Dinesh Singh and Ranveer Gurjar. Accordingly, a notice dated 16.12.2025
was issued to the applicant by the concerned police station directing him to
appear before the Investigating Officer. Apprehending his arrest in
connection with the said crime, the applicant has approached this Court by
filing the present application for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the present case arises out of the same facts and
allegations for which an FIR was already registered as Crime No. 311/2025
at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena. In that case, the applicant has
been enlarged on bail by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13712
3 MCRC-5460-2026
Gwalior, vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 40954/2025 in
respect of the same offence and identical allegations. The applicant is ready
to cooperate with the investigation as and when required and he is a
government employee, on the above ground the applicant seeks anticipatory
bail for the aforesaid offence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence punishable under
Sections 35, 36 and 42 of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and
other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act was not registered against the
present applicant on the previous occasion. It is further submitted that this
offence is related to manipulation of Aadhar Card. The applicant with
conspiracy with other co-accused and acted as solver due to which some
candidate got selected in the Police recruitment.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
6. As per the prosecution case, the present applicant was not a
candidate who secured appointment for himself, but is alleged to have acted
as a solver/impersonator for other candidates, namely Dinesh Singh and
Ranveer Gurjar. It is alleged that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the
co-accused candidates got their Aadhaar biometrics manipulated and, by
taking undue advantage of such tampering, the present applicant appeared in
the written examination in their place, thereby facilitating their illegal
selection in the Police Constable Recruitment, 2023. The Investigating
Agency has issued notice to the applicant for the purpose of interrogation
and recovery of relevant documents and digital evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13712
4 MCRC-5460-2026
7. Once a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. (now 35(3) BNSS) is
issued and the accused complies by appearing and cooperating, the
Investigating Officer (IO) generally cannot arrest them. Arrest is only
permitted if the person fails to comply or if the Investigating Officer records
reasons that new evidence necessitates arrest.
8. In case of Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation and Anothern 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114 , the Apex court held
that a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is to be issued to an
accused or any individual concerned, qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years and, that, as long as a person to whom a notice
under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is issued has complied and continues
to comply with the terms of the notice then, as per Section 35(5) of the
BNSS, 2023, it is not open for the police officer to arrest him unless, for
reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be
arrested.
9. In same offence two parallel investigation can not be conducted
hence the matter which is subject to investigation at Morena is not a part of
the investigation only the remaining part of offence is to be investigated
which is not punishable maximum up to three years and investigator issued
notice to participate in investigation. It is clear the intention he does not want
to arrest the accused according to available evidence on record.
10. It is not in dispute that in connection with an earlier FIR arising
out of similar allegations, the applicant has been granted bail by the High
Court. However, in the present case, additional offences, including those
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13712
5 MCRC-5460-2026
under Sections 35, 36 and 42 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial
and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Actand Section 43,66,66-C, 66-
D of the Information Technology Act, have been registered, which were not
part of the earlier crime. The offance registered against the applicant is
covered by Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273, but the police has registered other offences punishable up to 7
years in which accused has already granted regular bail, therefore the
possibility of arrest of the applicant cannot be ruled out, hence, the
anticipatory bail is allowed on the following terms:-
(i) It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in
connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released
on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
(ii) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer, as and when
required;
(iii) 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 facts to the Court
or to any police officer;
(iv) if the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the
same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit
of anticipatory bail shall be liable to be cancelled;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13712
6 MCRC-5460-2026
(v) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prar
