1 2025:CGHC:6590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 160 of 2025 Yashwant Patnayak S/o Late Vishwanath Patnayak Aged About 49 Years R/o Village-Godhi, P.S.-Tamnar, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General. For Objector : Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 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. 727/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District : Raigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. According to the prosecution's story, in brief, complainant Kaushal Prasad Kaushik lodged a report at the City Kotwali Police Station in Raigarh, alleging that on 15.10.2016, he met his colleague Nirmala ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.06 17:46:10 +0530 2 Nishad, who informed him that Satish Sahu might provide jobs for his children. On the same day, the complainant met Satish Sahu, who obtained his children's certificates and assured him that he would provide jobs for them. Later, Satish Sahu obtained Rs. 1,17,000/- from the complainant for providing jobs, but failed to do so. On 20.09.2018, Satish Sahu introduced the complainant to the present applicant, who allegedly assured him that he would provide jobs for his children at Jindal Company in Tamnar. Based on these assurances, the present applicant obtained a total amount of Rs. 29,44,800/- from the complainant, but again, no jobs were provided. When the complainant demanded his money back, the accused persons refused to return the amount, thereby cheating the complainant in the name of providing jobs for his children. Based on this report, an offense under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC was registered against the applicant and co-accused Satish Sahu. 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 the applicant has never obtained any amount from the complainant for providing job to his children. It appears that there are money dispute between the complainant and accused, which is of civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant has neither cheated or defrauded the complainant in the name of providing job. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.12.2024, conclusion of the trial is likely to 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 present applicant, who allegedly assured the complainant that he would provide jobs for his children at Jindal Company in Tamnar. Based on these assurances, the present applicant obtained a total amount of Rs. 29,44,800/- from the complainant, but no jobs were provided, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the objector opposes the prayers made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the case diary goes to show that the complainant met Nirmala Nishad, who introduced him to Satish Sahu, promising jobs for his children. Satish Sahu took Rs. 1,17,000/- but failed to do so. Later, Satish introduced the complainant to the applicant, who assured jobs at Jindal Company in Tamnar. The applicant took Rs. 29,44,800/- but didn't provide jobs. When the complainant demanded a refund, the accused refused, cheating him under the guise of providing job, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not seem appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Yashwant Patnayak, involved in Crime No. 727/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District : Raigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable 4 under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is rejected at this stage. 9. 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. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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 Abhishek