1 2025:CGHC:60250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10208 of 2025 Uttam Gautam Tandan S/o Late Gautam Tandan Aged About 45 Years At Present R/o Sindhi Colony Lalbagh, P.S. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ( As Per Challan) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P S Basantpur District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate (through VC) with Shri Karanjeet Bodhani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/12/2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.330/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.12.15 11:18:08 +0530 2 420,467,468,471,and 34 of IPC. (As per challan) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rajendra Kumar Thakur lodged a report in the police station Basantpur on 28.07.2025 to the effect that the brother-in-law of Bheshkumar alias Guddu, who works in his house, is Uttam Gautam Tandan/accused, who has got many people employed, on which the Complainant was introduced to the accused/Applicant Gautam Tandan on 01.08.2023, after which the accused deceived the Complainant by promising to get his children employed. On the basis of the said deception, it was said that Rs. 14 lakh would be required for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer and Rs. 21 lakh for the post of Naib Tehsildar. The Complainant gave Rs. 2,00,000/-in cash to accused in front of Om Prakash Agarwal and Bhesh Kumar Sahu for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer for his son Palas Thakur and Naib Tehsildar for his second son Prabhanshu Thakur. Thereafter, a total of Rs.35,00,000/- was given on different dates, out of which money was also given through cheque, a case under Section 420 was registered against the accused. On the basis of complaint, a crime was registered by the police station Basantpur under crime number-330/2025 under Section- 420 of I.P.C. During the investigation, Sections 467,468,471,and 34 of I.P.C. (as per challan) were added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations levelled against him are vague, omnibus and based merely on assumptions without any substantive evidence. He would submit that the dispute between the applicant and the complainant is purely of a civil and 3 financial nature arising out of a loan transaction taken for the marriage of the applicant’s daughter, for which interest was regularly paid and part of the principal amount has also been returned. It is further submitted that the complainant, who is himself a senior educationist, has lodged the complaint after an unexplained delay of nearly two years, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. The applicant has never taken money in the name of providing employment, and the criminal proceedings have been initiated only after a cheque issued as security was presented and disputes arose regarding repayment. He would submit that the applicant is a government teacher and is the sole earning member of his family, has roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 13/08/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and he would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case before the competent court. He would submit that the applicant, along with co-accused, allegedly defrauded the complainant by promising employment for his children and dishonestly obtained a substantial amount of money, totaling Rs.35,00,000/-. He would submit that the applicant holds six bank accounts, in which total amount of Rs.4,48,06,790/- has been deposited. He would submit that the applicant, in collusion with co-accused, used fabricated appointment orders to cheat innocent persons and was thus involved in organized criminal activity, thus the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the applicant, along with co-accused, allegedly defrauded the complainant by promising employment for his children and dishonestly obtained a substantial amount of money, totaling Rs.35,00,000/-, further the fact that the applicant holds six bank accounts, in which total amount of Rs.4,48,06,790/- has been deposited, further considering the fact that the applicant, in collusion with co-accused, used fabricated appointment orders to cheat innocent persons and was thus involved in organized criminal activity, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant Uttam Gautam Tandan involved in Crime No.330/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,and 34 of IPC, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri