Anticipatory bail may be granted based on parity and extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 225/2022 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that during a 2011 recruitment process for Sub-Engineers, the applicant falsely claimed to possess minimum educational qualifications and employment office registration as of the cut-off date (23.03.2011)

The FIR was lodged in 2022, eleven years later, following a judicial order

A departmental committee previously found the recruitment advertisement vague and noted no malicious intent by the applicant or the appointing authority

The applicant contended that 64 out of 73 similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the delay in prosecution and the principle of parity with co-accused persons.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

It also relied on the principle of parity in criminal jurisprudence, noting prior orders in *MCRCA No. 1293/2025*, *MCRCA No. 1460/2025*, and *MCRCA No. 1486/2025*, where co-accused in the same recruitment scandal were granted relief.

The Court emphasized the "facts and circumstances of the case," specifically noting the significant delay of 11 years in lodging the FIR, which the applicant argued made the prosecution's story prima facie doubtful

The Court observed that a departmental inquiry had already found the initial advertisement "vague" and cleared the applicant of "malafide intention"

Crucially, the Court applied the rule of parity, acknowledging that 64 other candidates involved in the same 89-person FIR had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court

The State counsel did not dispute these facts or the bail granted to co-accused

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the evidence, the Court found the applicant’s cooperation and permanent residency sufficient to mitigate flight risk

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including: full cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, regular attendance at trial, and the submission of verified Aadhaar credentials