1 2025:CGHC:13707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2251 of 2025 Ramlakhan Kaiwartya S/o Shri Panchram Kaiwartya Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kot, P.S. Gidhouri, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), Present R/o L I G-853, Sector-5 Housing Board Colony Saddu, Thana Vidhansabha, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Name And Adds As Per Chargesheet) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.03.2025 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. 417/2024, registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Chandram Chelak, filed a written report alleging therein that he had given Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakh rupees) to the applicant on June 1, 2018, promising to get complainant’s two sons, Tikeshwar and Lokeshwar, jobs in the Police Department. However, the applicant/accused neither provided the jobs nor returned the money. When repeatedly asked for the money, the applicant/accused gave the complainant two checks for Rs.2,00,000/- each on October 24, 2021, which bounced due to insufficient funds in the applicant's account. Based on the complainant's written report, a case was registered against the applicant/accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Kasdol Police Station, and a charge-sheet was filed after a thorough investigation. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that as per the complainant, he has given the amount on 01.06.2018 and after 6 months report has been lodged i.e. on 27.09.2024, and there is no explanation regarding the said delay in lodging the FIR. He also submits that the applicant himself an unemployed person and he die not have any authority to provide the job to any of the persons in any post, the complainant is very 3 well known that no vacancy has been advertised in any post and no where he has filled up the application form than how the job can be provided because no appointment can be given without completing the appointment process as per the rules, further the applicant did not have any concern with the complainant and he did not and he did not receive any amount on assurance of providing job, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has five criminal antecedents from the year 2008 to 2023, which were decided and presently three cases are registered on the basis of one memorandum, copies of status report are filed as Annexure A-2. The applicant is in jail since 27.09.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has taken amount to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for providing job to complainant’s son in Police Department and later on refused to return the money, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has two more criminal antecedents, which are of the year 2025 under similar offence, against which he has preferred MCRC Nos.2207/2025 and 2233/2025, which have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2025, therefore, he is a habitual offender and his bail application is liable to be 4 rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Perusal of the case diary goes to show that the applicant has taken amount to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for providing job to complainant’s son in Police Department and had neither provided the jobs nor returned the money, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned applicant ten criminal antecedents, out of which, two cases are of identical nature against which, applicant has preferred MCRC Nos.2207/2025 and 2233/2025, which have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2025, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not seem appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Ramlakhan Kaiwartya, involved in Crime No. 417/2024, registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, is rejected. 8. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case also who claims to have been cheated by the applicant herein, as the conduct of the complainant amounts to give bribe for obtaining employment through illegal mode. 5 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil