1 2025:CGHC:43289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4505 of 2025  Chandrakant Sinha S/o Mr. Shivlal Sinha Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Raksi Vikaskhand Chhura, Distt.- Gariyaband C.G. ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kurud, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 26-08-2025 1) This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the applicant before this Court for the grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 385/2022 registered at Police Station–Kurud, District–Dhamtari (C.G.), for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2) As per the prosecution’s story, the applicant and one Vivek Patnaik purportedly cheated the complainant of Rs. 7-8 Lakhs, assuring a government job of Assistant Legal Counselor in the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, State of Chhattisgarh. As per the contents of the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:17 +0530 2 FIR, Vivek Patnaik received Rs. 30,000/- in cash on 13.12.2016 and Rs. 3,25,000/- in cash in year 2016 whereas the present applicant received Rs. 50,000/- cash on 19.02.2018; Rs. 2,00,000/- cash on 02.11.2018; Rs. 30,000/- via PhonePe on 20.02.2019 and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash in the month of April, 2019, thus the present applicant grabbed a total sum of Rs. 4,93,000/- from the complainant. It is further stated in the FIR that when the complainant approached the applicant for the refund, it was refused, which led to the filing of the FIR. Accordingly, the police registered the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the applicant and the co-accused. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits earlier, Crime No. 185/2022, punishable under Section 420 of IPC was registered by police at Purani Basti Police Station, Raipur against the present applicant and Vivek Patnaik, wherein the complainant was one of the victims. He further submits that as the complainant was a victim, the subsequent FIR lodged by him at Police Station – Kurud on 06.06.2018 is hit by the principle of double jeopardy and the applicant cannot be penalized twice for the same incident. He contends that only Rs. 30,000/- was transferred through PhonePe, and there is a baseless allegation of cash transactions in the FIR. He further contends that the applicant has been in jail since 30.04.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4) On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and there are two criminal antecedents against the applicant, which are as under:- (i) Crime No. 185/2022 registered at P.S. – Purani Basti, Raipur, punishable under Section 420 of IPC and; 3 (ii) Crime No. 58/2021 registered at P.S. – Mana Camp, Raipur, punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC. He further submits that the complainant was one of the victims in Crime No. 185/2022 and the FIR was lodged by someone else; therefore, the principle of double jeopardy would not attract as both the incidents and allegations in both FIRs are different. He contends that the FIR in the present case was registered on 06.06.2022 and the applicant remained absconding till the month of April, 2025; therefore, this bail application deserves to be rejected. 5) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the objector supports the contention made by learned State counsel. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7) From a perusal of the case diary and the submissions made herein above, it is quite vivid that Crime No. 185/2022 was registered against the applicant and co-accused Vivek Patnaik for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, and in that case, the applicant had cheated some individuals on the assurance of providing a government job. The complainant in that case was one of the victims, and his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded but the complainant of that case was someone else, and the allegations are also different; therefore, the principle of double jeopardy would not attract. 8) In the present case, according to the FIR, there are serious allegations leveled against the applicant and co-accused Vivek Patnaik, who duped the complainant of a huge sum ranging between Rs. 7-8 Lakhs on different dates in installments. The allegation against the present 4 applicant is that on various dates, he grabbed Rs. 4,93,000/- in total from the complainant on the assurance that he would provide a government job. Further, there are criminal cases/antecedents registered against the applicant. 9) Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, this bail application stands rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya