1 2025:CGHC:13071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2171 of 2025 Kusum Yadav D/o Kamta Prasad Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Sankara, Tahsil- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Pandari, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikram Pratap and Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 361/2024, registered at Police Station Pandari, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.19 18:43:37 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18-12-2024, the complaiant Monika Mirdha made written complaint at Police Station Pandari, Mova, District Raipur (C.G.) stating therein that between Jan-2024 to April-2024 she resided at Dubey Colony Mova and the present applicant also resided there, therefore the complainant known to the present applicant and the applicant produced herself as staff nurse in Dr. Ambedkar Hospital Raipur and assured the complainant that her relative Harish Patel will get in the job and demanded Rs.2,50,000/- for employment. On the basis of said assurance, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.75,000/- on 05-01-2024, Rs.25,000/- on 10-04-2024 and Rs.25,000/- on 12- 04-2024 and issued forged appointment order in the favour of complainant, therefore crime has been registered and filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this crime. They further submit that the applicant is a lady working as staff nurse in Dr. Ambedkar Hospital Raipur and has neither committed nor participated in any such act, which may amount to any of the offences, mentioned above. Further, besides the above, the evidence collected by the prosecution are also not prima facie sufÏcient to hold the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. The complainant has not made any transaction in the account of the present applicant and false and fabricated story narrated by the complainant. The co-accused Harish Patel happens to be the brother of the friend of the applicant and had taken name her name falsely in the name of providing job 3 by misusing her profession and her name. The applicant is in jail since 19-12-2024 and charge-sheet has already been filed and it will take sufÏcient time for trial to be concluded, so looking to the long detention of the applicant, this Court may kind enough to allow the applicant for grant of regular bail. 4. 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 submits that the applicant along with the other co-accused allegedly collected a total of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the complainant Padman Kashyap, by promising them employment and further also provided fake appointment order to the complainant. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the applicant along with other co-accused allegedly took total of Rs. 1,25,000/- from from the complainant Monika Mirdha, by promising her employment and further also provided fake appointment order to the complainant as such, keeping in view the increasing trend in society in the crime of cheating people by taking lakhs of rupees from them in the name of providing jobs, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the crime alleged against the accused, its gravity and the nature of the case in totality, it does not appear to be justified to grant the benefit of bail to the applicant/accused. 4 7. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Kusum Yadav, involved in Crime No. 361/2024, registered at Police Station Pandari, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, is rejected at this stage. 8. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case who claim to have been cheated by the applicant herein. Offering of money by the complainant for getting employed through illegal modes, cannot be encouraged by this Court and has to be dealt strictly. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 Manpreet