1 2025:CGHC:57498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9506 of 2025 1 - Bheshram Deshmukh S/o Ratanlal Deshmukh Aged About 62 Years R/o Govt. Staff Quarter Veterinary College Anjora, Chowki Anjora, P.S. Pulgaon, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ravikant Deshmukh S/o Bheshram Deshmukh Aged About 28 Years R/o Govt. Staff Quarter Veterinary College Anjora, Chowki Anjora, P.S. Pulgaon, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Pulgaon, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26/11/2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 363/2025 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Bhesharam Deshmukh, his son Ravikant, and associate Arun Meshram fraudulently lured the complainant, Santaram Deshmukh, by falsely promising government peon jobs in the Ministry at Raipur for his son and son-in-law. They demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for arranging the appointments and received this amount in cash on 02.07.2022 at Bhesharam’s government quarter in Anjora. After taking the money and documents, the accused kept delaying the matter on various pretexts and finally stopped responding. When the complainant verified at the Ministry, he learned that neither Arun Meshram nor Ravikant held any job there. Later, several other victims also reported being similarly cheated by the same accused for different amounts. Thus, the accused collectively committed cheating and dishonestly took money without providing any job. An FIR was lodged, and the accused were arrested for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicants never cheated the complainant or anyone else. Instead, they were themselves victims of fraud committed by the main accused, Arun Kumar Meshram, who took money from them by falsely promising a government job in the Mantralaya for applicant no. 2. When the applicants demanded their money back, Arun Meshram avoided 3 repayment, gave threats, and later absconded. The applicants even attempted to lodge a report against him, but the police did not register the FIR, forcing them to submit a written complaint to the Inspector General of Police on 12.06.2025. Applicant No. 1 is also a 62-year-old person suffering from frequent illness. He also submits that the applicants had sold their agricultural land through registered sale deeds, and the sale proceeds were deposited in applicant No. 2’s bank account. They point out that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 01.09.2025, almost three years and two months after the alleged incident of 02.07.2022. They maintain that they never received Rs.5,00,000/- or any amount from the complainant or any other person for providing jobs. The applicants are in jail since 06.09.2025, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicants are alleged to have, in collusion with co-accused Arun Meshram, dishonestly taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant by falsely promising government jobs in the Mantralaya and, after receiving the amount, neither provided any employment nor returned the money, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 06.09.2025, the fact that the applicants are alleged to have, in collusion with co-accused Arun Meshram, dishonestly taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant by falsely promising government jobs in the Mantralaya and, after receiving the amount, neither provided any employment nor returned the money, but considering the fact that they have no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants-Bheshram Deshmukh and Ravikant Deshmukh, involved in Crime No. 363/2025 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without 5 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 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 give bribe for obtaining employment through illegal mode. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil