1 2025:CGHC:5331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 36 of 2025 Jay Singh Rajput S/o Chetan Singh Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Basantpur, Police Station Kotwali, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Dipka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 415/2024, registered at Police Station Dipka, District Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 07.12.2024, the complainant, Sanjay Das, submitted a written complaint to the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.30 10:55:00 +0530 2 Police Station, stating that he had been acquainted with the accused, Suman Singh Rajput, since their school days. In February 2023, Suman Singh Rajput offered to secure a job for the complainant as a clerk at the High Court in Bilaspur, claiming that she could facilitate the appointment through her connections, but it would require an investment. After discussions with his friend, Ajay Pal, the complainant expressed interest in the job opportunity. Suman Singh Rajput and her brother, Jay Singh, demanded Rs. 4,50,000/- from the complainant and Rs. 3,00,000/- from Ajay Pal for the clerk position. They provided a WhatsApp message with an advertisement number (7/23) dated 04.10.2023, purportedly from the High Court. The accused asked for documents, including Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and ration cards, which were shared via WhatsApp. They then demanded money for processing the job application. Between 01.03.2023, and 19.09.2023, the complainant transferred Rs. 3,67,500/- to various mobile numbers provided by the accused. Similarly, Ajay Pal transferred Rs. 1,34,500/- through PhonePe and Rs. 13,000/- in cash, totaling Rs. 1,47,500/-. When the complainant inquired about the job status, the accused cited the transfer of a judge as the reason for the delay. In February 2024, the complainant visited the High Court and discovered that no such vacancy existed. The accused claimed that the recruitment process was confidential. The complainant alleged that Suman Singh Rajput and her brother, Jay Singh, cheated him and Ajay Pal out of Rs. 5,15,000/- by promising jobs that did not exist. A written complaint was filed, and a crime was registered against the accused for 3 cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the allegations against the applicant/accused, Jay Singh, are based solely on his familial relationship with the co-accused, Suman Singh, and the transfer of funds into his bank account. However, the prosecution has failed to establish any direct or indirect evidence of criminal intent or active involvement in the alleged fraud. The applicant merely allowed his sister to use his account in good faith, which does not constitute a criminal act under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that there is no direct financial transaction or communication between the applicant/accused and the complainant, Sanjay Das. The prosecution's narrative does not detail the amount of money deposited into the applicant's account or substantiate the alleged fraudulent acts attributed to the applicant. He also submits that the matter stems from a financial dispute between the complainant, Sanjay Das, and the main accused, Suman Singh. The applicant is being implicated merely due to his familial relationship with Suman, despite having no knowledge of or involvement in any fraudulent activities. The applicant, acting in good faith, allowed his sister to transfer money to his account and did not directly benefit from these transactions. Notably, the ATM card of the applicant's account was in his sister's possession, indicating that the applicant played no active role in the transactions. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 08.12.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some 4 time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that a charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent court. She further submits that it is evident that the complainant deposited money into the applicant's account through PhonePe and PayTM. Since the main accused, Suman, and the applicant/accused, Jay Singh, are siblings, it prima facie indicates the applicant's involvement in the crime. She further submits that an amount of Rs. 1,34,500/- was obtained for providing job from the account of the present applicant and the main accused, Suman Singh, by the complainant's friend, Ajay Pal, which has also been recovered. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the objector opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the case, it appears that the complainant deposited the money in the account of the applicant and his sister through PhonePe and PayTM. This prima facie indicates the applicant's involvement in the offence in question, moreover, an amount of Rs. 3,67,500/- was obtained by the applicant and main accused Suman Singh from the complainant for providing Government job and an amount of Rs.1.34.500/- was recovered from the accounts of the applicant and main accused Suman Singh. Furthermore, looking to 5 the rising cases of fraud where people are being cheated out of money in the name of the Government job, it is not deemed justifiable to grant bail to the applicant/accused. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, considering the fact that the applicant and main accused Suman Singh obtained the amount for securing government job from the complainant and the material available in case diary, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Jay Singh Rajput, involved in Crime No. 415/2024, registered at Police Station Dipka, District Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the IPC, is rejected. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. 10. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to initiate criminal prosecution against the complainant who has given money through bank transactions for securing job in the High Court for a wrongful purpose to the present applicant and accused Suman Singh. 11. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it proper and considering the fact that such instance as has been brought to the notice of this Court is increasing day by day and inspite of the fact that the Registry of this Court on repeated occasions have made request to the general public at large not to come in the allurement of such person or person for providing job in the High Court of 6 Chhattisgarh and District Courts of the State, repeated information has been published in the website of the High Court as well as the District Court and also through other news items published in the local news papers etc, the persons are not paying any heed to public notice published by the Registrar General of this Court time and again in this regard and are themselves indulging in such activities and becoming easy target at the hands of the touts in order to secure job in the High Court and District Courts and as such, in the present case, the complainant cannot be said to be an innocent person as he himself has parted with the money for getting a job in the High Court which cannot be justified in any manner in the eyes of law and he too is liable for criminal prosecution, hence, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to take adequate steps against the complainant also, in accordance with law in order to discourage such practice which may tarnish the image of the Pious Institution. 12. OfÏce is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Registrar General of this Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek