The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently granted anticipatory bail to an applicant accused of acting as a middleman in a large-scale impersonation racket during police constable recruitment exams. The judgment underscores the principle that anticipatory bail cannot be denied merely on the gravity of allegations when the applicant has already been granted bail in similar cases, reinforcing the need for cooperation with investigation as a key consideration under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Amitabh, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS apprehending arrest in Crime No. 237/2025 registered at Police Station Alirajpur, District Alirajpur (M.P.). The case involved offences under Sections 419 (cheating by impersonation), 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1982.
Key Facts
- The prosecution alleged that co-accused persons, with the help of the applicant acting as a middleman, impersonated original candidates in the written examination for the post of Constable (GD) in exchange for monetary gain.
- After qualifying the written exam, the original candidates cleared the physical efficiency test and were selected for the post.
- During document verification, authorities noticed suspicious Aadhaar updates made immediately before and after the examination, leading to the registration of an FIR.
- A separate FIR (Crime No. 74/2025) was registered at Police Station Cyber & Hi-Tech Crime, Bhopal, after UIDAI authorities found violations of prescribed rules by Aadhaar operators.
- The applicant was alleged to have conspired with solvers, impersonators, and Aadhaar operators to facilitate fraudulent selections.
Procedural History
- Crime No. 237/2025: FIR registered at Police Station Alirajpur for offences under IPC and M.P. Pariksha Adhiniyam.
- Multiple FIRs: The applicant was previously granted bail in five similar cases:
- Crime No. 419/2025 (Police Station Madhoganj, Gwalior) - Bail granted on 15.09.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 41057/2025).
- Crime No. 303/2025 (Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind) - Bail granted on 13.11.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 52044/2025).
- Crime No. 299/2025 (Police Station City Kotwali, Morena) - Bail granted on 08.12.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 53503/2025).
- Crime No. 198/2025 (Police Station Kampoo, Gwalior) - Bail granted on 20.11.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 53765/2025).
- Crime No. 89/2025 (Police Station Satanwada, Shivpuri) - Bail granted on 18.01.2026 (M.Cr.C. No. 55126/2025).
- Crime No. 74/2025: The applicant was granted anticipatory bail on 22.04.2026 (M.Cr.C. No. 16499/2026) in a case registered at Cyber & Hi-Tech Crime, Bhopal.
- Co-accused Ashok Gurjar: Granted anticipatory bail on 28.04.2026 (M.Cr.C. No. 14055/2026).
- Present Application: Filed under Section 482 BNSS for anticipatory bail in Crime No. 237/2025.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail on the grounds that:
- He was falsely implicated based on inadmissible statements made by co-accused in police custody.
- He had already been granted bail in five similar cases arising from the same allegations.
- He was ready to cooperate with the investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to an applicant who has already been granted bail in multiple FIRs arising from the same set of allegations, particularly when the investigation is ongoing and the applicant is alleged to have played a key role in a criminal conspiracy.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant was innocent and falsely implicated based on statements made by co-accused in police custody, which are not admissible in evidence.
- The present case arose from the same facts and allegations as five other FIRs, in which the applicant had already been granted bail by the High Court.
- The applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation and had not misused his liberty in previous bail orders.
- The investigation in the present case was parallel and overlapping, and the offences punishable by a maximum of three years did not warrant arrest.
For the Respondent/State
- The applicant was a key conspirator who acted as a middleman in facilitating fraudulent selections by manipulating Aadhaar biometrics.
- The gravity of the offence, involving large-scale impersonation in police recruitment exams, justified denial of anticipatory bail.
- The applicant did not deserve bail as he was allegedly involved in a criminal racket with solvers, impersonators, and Aadhaar operators.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the case diary and observed that the applicant was not a candidate who secured appointment for himself but was alleged to have acted as a middleman in a criminal conspiracy. The Court noted:
"It is alleged that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the accused candidate Ramroop alongwith other co-accused got their Aadhaar biometrics manipulated and by taking undue advantage of such tampering, thereby facilitating the illegal selection of the candidate in the Police Constable Recruitment, 2023."
The Court relied on the precedent set in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which held that arrest should not be a routine outcome and must be justified by cogent evidence. The Court further observed that:
- The applicant had already been granted bail in five similar cases arising from the same allegations.
- Two parallel investigations could not be conducted for the same offence, and the remaining part of the offence was not punishable by more than three years.
- The intention of the investigating officer appeared to be to secure the applicant's cooperation rather than arrest him.
The Court concluded that the possibility of arrest could not be ruled out, and thus, anticipatory bail was warranted subject to strict conditions to ensure the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to the following conditions:
- The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.
- The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required.
- He shall not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts.
- If the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during the bail period, the order granting anticipatory bail shall be liable to cancellation.
- The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely on Gravity of Allegations
- Practitioners can argue that anticipatory bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence, especially when the applicant has already been granted bail in similar cases.
- Courts are likely to consider cooperation with investigation as a key factor in granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.
Multiple FIRs on Same Allegations Do Not Justify Arrest
- If an applicant has been granted bail in multiple FIRs arising from the same set of allegations, courts may be reluctant to deny anticipatory bail in subsequent cases.
- The judgment reinforces that parallel investigations for the same offence are not permissible, and the investigating agency must consolidate its efforts rather than seek repeated arrests.
Conditions for Bail Must Ensure Cooperation
- Courts are likely to impose strict conditions to ensure the applicant's cooperation, such as:
- Furnishing a personal bond and surety.
- Regular appearance for interrogation.
- Non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
- Restrictions on travel without court permission.
- Practitioners must advise clients to strictly comply with bail conditions to avoid cancellation of bail.
