1 2025:CGHC:32034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4525 of 2025 Swatantra Kaushal S/o Shri Kesu Ram Kaushal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Baliyara, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2025 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. 219/2025, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District : Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant, Sanjay Tandon, lodged an FIR stating that the applicant took a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakh rupees) on 11.05.2024 for the purpose of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:10:07 +0530 2 providing employment. Moreover, the applicant also received Rs. 12,00,000/- (twelve lakh rupees) from the complainant’s friend, Kuleshwar Banjare. Thereafter, despite the complainant’s repeated requests, the applicant did not return the money. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that on perusal of the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant, on 11.05.2024, received the money for the purpose of providing employment to the complainant. He also submits that the applicant informed the complainant that the money had been deposited with Dr. Vikas Chandrakar, the person who had promised to provide employment. Thereafter, on 06.03.2025, the applicant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District Mahasamund (C.G.), stating that Dr. Vikas Chandrakar had received the money for providing employment but was now refusing to return it. He further submits that even if any agreement was executed between the parties, evidence would be required to prove the same. Therefore, the learned trial Court, while considering the bail application, ought to have refrained from passing an order by appreciating the agreement, which is a matter for trial and requires evidence. Moreover, even if any agreement was executed for providing employment, such an agreement is not enforceable under the Indian Contract Act as it is against public policy. He submits that the present applicant is in jail since 19.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 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 complainant, Sanjay Tandon, has lodged an FIR alleging that the applicant took a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakh rupees) on 11.05.2024, purportedly for providing employment in the department of Agriculture. Additionally, the applicant allegedly received Rs. 12,00,000/- (twelve lakh rupees) from the complainant's friend, Kuleshwar Banjare. Despite repeated requests from the complainant, the applicant failed to return the money as well as to provide employment, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the complainant, Sanjay Tandon, has lodged an FIR alleging that the applicant took Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakh rupees) on 11.05.2024, purportedly for securing employment in the Department of Agriculture, additionally, the applicant allegedly received Rs. 12,00,000/- (twelve lakh rupees) from the complainant's friend, Kuleshwar Banjare, despite repeated requests, the applicant failed to provide employment or refund the money, 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 – Swatantra Kaushal, 4 involved in Crime No. 219/2025, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District : Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (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 also who claims to have been cheated by the applicant herein as the conduct of the complainant amounts to giving bribe for obtaining employment through illegal mode. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office 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 . Abhishek