1 2025:CGHC:18593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3145 of 2025 Rajkumar Kandra S/o Budhnath Kandra Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Pharsabahar, Tahsil, Post And P.S.- Pharsabahar, Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Lundra Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ...Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 250/2024 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.11.2024, the complainant lodged a report before the police station- Lundra, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 alleging therein that the applicant/accused introduced himself as the head of the NGO namely Gramin Vikas Parisar Unit, Pharasbahar, Distt - Jashpur (C.G), and promising him to provide job to the complainant first as a supervisor in the said ofÏce and later as a coordinator, had received a total of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant Manju Pankra through Phone Pay and Rs. 10,000/- each from Saroj Toppo, Chandradev Singh Marawi, Shashi Singh, Ajab Singh, Agar Say and Suneshwar on the pretext of making them a supervisor and Rs. 3,000/- each on the pretext of making them a volunteer through Phone Pay in the account of his brother- in-law Dhamendra. The applicant/accused also issued fake appointment orders for giving jobs to the complainants and did not pay them any honorarium even after working for two-three months. When the complainant demanded the money back, he refused to return it. Thus, he fraudulently obtained a total of Rs. 1,77,000/- from the complainants between 13.07.2023 to 28.08.2023. On the basis of complaint, police registered the alleged offence against the present applicant and arrested him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant has not receive any amount from the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per statement of the complainant, she has been categorically stated the amount was paid through online but the said account is not a personal account of the present applicant and he has not received any amount from the complainant and 3 further there is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R, where as the date of incident from 13.7.2023 to 28.8.2023 but the F.I.R was lodge by the complainant on 3.11.2024 without explaining delay in lodging of F.I.R. and he is in jail since 01.02.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the complainant lodged a complaint against the applicant, for obtaining ₹ 1,77,000/- from him and others for providing job. Thereafter, the applicant also provided fake appointment letters also but ultimately he failed to do so and committed fraud with the complainant and others. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant/accused allegedly posed as the head of an NGO, Khudiya Rani Gram Vikas Parishad, and promising the present complainant and others to provide them job, he collected ₹60,000/- from the present complainant and similar amounts from others, totaling ₹1,77,000/-, under the guise of job placements and thereafter, he issued fake appointment orders and failed to refund the money, as such, it is a very serious crime which is rising day by 4 day and this Court cannot ignore and encourage the same hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Rajkumar Kandra, involved in Crime No. 250/2024 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Kunal