1 2025:CGHC:50079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6716 of 2025 Ajay Pal Yadav S/o Late Arjun Lal Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar Police Station Kusmunda Temporary Residence Amrit Tulya Tea Shop Nagar Palika Road Police Station Deepika District - Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Deepika District- Korba (C.G.) … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.10. 202 5 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2025, registered at Police Station – Deepika, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution's case, on 01.02.2025, Narayan Prasad Kela PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.09 10:57:34 +0530 2 (K.P. Kela), aged 54, Section Officer of the Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, against Sanjay Das, son of Sukumar, aged 33, resident of Pali Road, Deepika, District Korba. Based on the report presented by Constable No. 845, Sudhir Kashyap, an FIR was registered under Crime No. 25/2025 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered at Police Station Deepika by Constable No. 390, Ramratan Tondon. According to the FIR, this Court had issued general warnings through a notice dated 06.10.2023 and a circular dated 23.10.2024, both published on the High Court's website and in daily newspapers. These notices cautioned the public against falling prey to inducements or assurances of appointments to posts in the High Court or District Courts in exchange for money or other undue consideration. They warned that accepting such offers would amount to a criminal offence and lead to prosecution. Despite these warnings, individuals continue to violate the directives by accepting such inducements and paying money in return for job assurances in the judiciary, which constitutes a criminal act. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that as per the evidence on record and upon perusal of the charge-sheet, it is evident that no material exists against the present applicant except for a monetary transaction with co-accused Sanjay Das. This transaction amounts to only Rs.1,47,500/-, made through multiple small payments mostly online 3 and some in cash not to the complainant directly, but to Sanjay Das. The applicant is no-where involved in the alleged commission of offence, he is only the owner of his tea shop and has made payment to the Sanjay Das for the good purchased by him from the Kirana Store of the Sanjay Das. He further submitted that the present applicant has not made any promise to anyone regarding securing employment, nor has the applicant demanded any money from anyone. No individual has stated in their police statement that the applicant took money from them in exchange for providing a job. The allegations mentioned pertain to another accused person. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion, arising from a small transaction of Rs.1,47,500/- (via online and cash) from the applicant’s account to the complainant. He further submitted that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused person, namely, Sanjay Das has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 377/2025, hence, the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 4 documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the as per the evidence on record and upon perusal of the charge-sheet, it is evident that no material exists against the present applicant except for a monetary transaction with co-accused Sanjay Das, further this transaction amounts to only Rs.1,47,500/-, made through multiple payments mostly online and some in cash not to the complainant directly, but to Sanjay Das, also considering the fact that the present applicant has not made any promise to anyone regarding securing employment, nor has the applicant demanded any money from anyone, no individual has stated in their police statement that the applicant took money from them in exchange for providing a job and the allegations mentioned pertain to another accused person, further the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Ajay Pal Yadav, involved in Crime No. 25/2025, registered at Police Station – Deepika District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, 6 then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti