1 2025:CGHC:12681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2084 of 2025 Amit Singh (Wrongly Mentioned As Sinha In Impugned Order) S/o Pradeep Singh (Wrongly Mentioned As Sinha In Impugned Order) Aged About 42 Years R/o L.I.G. 01,312, Housing Board Colony, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, S.H.O. Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. For objector : Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Third Bail Application under GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.19 18:05:27 +0530 2 Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 53/2024, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B) of IPC. 2. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide MCRC No.2684/2024 on 02/05/2024 and second bail application was dismissed vide MCRC No.4671/2024 on 21/10/2024. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged report that in the year of 2017-18 some vacancies has been issued for the post of District guard in police department and the applicant along with other co-accused have taken Rs.3,25,000 from the complainant and also taken Rs.2,00,000 from the Chandrapal Netam who is a villager of the complainant on pretext of providing Job on the post of GD and after taking money the applicant along with other co-accused has given forged appointment letter to the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He would submit that present applicant has not received any amount from the complainant and as per the allegation of the complainant the money has been taken by the Afjal Kaureshi and Piyush. He would submit that material witness have been examined and they have stated that the money has been taken by the co-accused and they have not 3 given money to the present applicant. He would submit that as per the deposition of PW-4 he has stated that he doesn't identify the applicant and before him the complainant has not given any money to the present applicant. He would submit that no any incriminating article seized from the present applicant. He would submit that out of 29 witnesses 5 witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 26/01/2024 almost more than 1 year and the trial will take more time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before competent Court. He would submit that that there are three cases including the present case registered against the applicant. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that applicant along with other co-accused have taken Rs.3,25,000 from the complainant and also taken Rs.2,00,000 from the Chandrapal Netam who is a villager of the complainant on pretext of providing Job on the post of GD and after taking money the applicant along 4 with other co-accused has given forged appointment letter to the complainant, it is a very serious crime which is rising day by day and this Court cannot ignore and encourage the same hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the third bail application of applicant – Amit Singh, involved in Crime No. 53/2024, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B) of IPC, is rejected. 10. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case as well as other individual who claim to have been cheated by the applicant and other co-accused. Offering of money by the complainant and other individual for getting employed through illegal modes, cannot be encouraged by this Court and has to be dealt strictly. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri