Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Middleman in Aadhaar-Linked Constable Recruitment Scam

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused person allegedly involved in a police constable recruitment scam linked to Aadhaar manipulation and impersonation, while underscoring the limits on police arrest when an accused cooperates with investigation following statutory notice.

The order was passed by a division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal in a plea filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 438 of CrPC), where the applicant, Ashok Gurjar, apprehended arrest in connection with Crime registered at the Cyber and High Tech Crimes Police Station in Bhopal.

According to the prosecution, the case arises out of an alleged racket in which impersonators or “solvers” appeared in written examinations on behalf of original candidates in exchange for money. After clearing the written stage through such fraudulent means, the actual candidates allegedly appeared in the physical efficiency test and secured selection as constables in different parts of Madhya Pradesh.

The authorities reportedly detected irregularities during document verification, particularly suspicious updates in Aadhaar records made immediately before and after the examination. This triggered a broader investigation, including action against Aadhaar operators who were found to have violated prescribed procedures. The present applicant was alleged to have acted as a middleman facilitating the conspiracy between candidates, impersonators, and Aadhaar operators.

Amit Jain, counsel for the applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated and highlighted that in a previous FIR arising out of similar allegations, he had already been granted bail by the High court. It was further submitted that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation and comply with all directions issued by the authorities.

Opposing the plea, Ritwik Parashar, Government Advocate for the State contended that additional offences, particularly those under the Aadhaar Act and the Information Technology Act relating to biometric manipulation and digital fraud, had been invoked in the present case and were not part of the earlier FIR. The prosecution maintained that the applicant’s role as a facilitator in a larger conspiracy warranted custodial interrogation.

After examining the case diary, the court noted that the applicant was not a direct beneficiary of the alleged fraud in terms of securing employment but was accused of acting as a conduit in the illegal scheme. Importantly, the bench observed that the investigating agency had already issued a notice to the applicant for interrogation and recovery of documents and digital evidence.

The court placed reliance on settled legal principles governing arrest under the BNSS, reiterating that once a notice is issued under Section 35(3) (corresponding to Section 41A CrPC) and the accused complies with it, arrest should not be made routinely. The bench observed, “once a notice… is issued and the accused complies by appearing and cooperating, the Investigating Officer generally cannot arrest them,” unless reasons are recorded showing necessity of arrest.

It further took note of the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizing that arrest is not mandatory in offences punishable up to seven years if the accused is cooperating with the investigation. The High court also remarked that parallel investigations into the same set of facts are impermissible and that only distinct aspects of the offence could be separately probed.

At the same time, the bench acknowledged that additional offences had been invoked in the present case, and therefore the possibility of arrest could not be entirely ruled out. Balancing these considerations, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application.

Granting relief, the court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety. It also imposed standard conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the country without prior permission of the court.

Case Title: Ashok Gurjar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: March 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal