1 2025:CGHC:8194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8454 of 2024 • Bhupesh Kumar Sonwani S/o Late Shri Bhola Singh Sonwani Aged About 47 Years Address - Ward No. 24, Amar Chowk, Raja Talab, Thana Civil Line, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nawai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant. : Mr. Harshwardhan Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent/State. : Mr. Kesav Gupta, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 17/02/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 5-9-2024 in connection with Crime No. 138 of 2023 2 registered at Police Station – Newai, District Durg (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged a report in Police Station alleging that the applicant along with other co- accused had taken Rs.4,25,000/- from the complainant for providing job to his son namely Naveen Singh in Mantralaya, Raipur and Rs.1,70,000/- from Buddheshwar who is friend of complainant’s son for providing job as a peon in Mantralay in different instalments and through phone pay.. Thereafter, the applicant neither provided them government job nor returned their money back. On demanding money from the complainants, the applicant gave cheque of Union Bank of India of of Rs.4,25,000/- to Naveen and Rs.1,50,000/- to Buddheshwar. When the complainants presented the said cheques in the bank for clearance, the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence directly or indirectly. He would further submit that the charge sheet has also been submitted, the applicant has been released in other similar nature of offence by the co-ordinate,Bench of this Court, therefore, he may be released on bail.He would further submit that the cheque of the applicant has been misued by other co-accused who have been recently arrested on 6-2-2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector opposing the bail petition would submit that for similar nature of offence, Crime No.329 of 2023 was registered against the applicant and he has been released on bail on 18-10- 2024 ie., after lapse of one year and three months of arrest. He would further submit that the facts of the present case are different from the facts of that case, therefore, he would pray for rejection of the bail petition. 3 5. Learned State counsel opposing the bail petition would submit that the applicant along with other co-accused has been involved in the crime for providing government job to the poor villagers which is serious olfence, therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence and also considering the fact that the applicant has committed fraud against the complainants on the pretext that he will provide government job to them by taking money from them which is a heinous offence and also considering the fact that whether the cheque has been misused by other co- accused who have been recently arrested is necessary by interrogation by the prosecution, as such also his custodial remand is necessary, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the the instant MCRC No 8454 of 2024 is rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.02.18 17:07:20 +0530