1 2025:CGHC:61352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9165 of 2025 Rupesh Sahu S/o Chaitram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram Amakherwa, P.S. Civil Lines Manendragarh, District Manendragarh, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 256/2025 registered at Police Station- Purani Basti, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340, 238, 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant, Chetna Sahu, lodged an FIR at Police Station Purani Basti, stating that in December, 2023, she had come to her maternal uncle Shatrughan KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Sahu’s house at Devpuri, Raipur, where she came to know that her daughter Shikha Sahu was being offered a job in the Railways under the sports quota. During this period, she was introduced to Rupesh Sahu, a tenant residing in the said house, who projected himself as a Railway ofÏcer posted at Bilaspur. He claimed that he had already arranged railway jobs for several family members and outsiders and assured the complainant that he would also arrange a railway job for her daughter. On this pretext, he demanded relevant documents and money. After a few days, Shikha Sahu was informed by Rupesh Sahu that her joining letter had been received, whereupon the complainant handed over documents and money to the applicant at his residence in Professor Colony, Raipur, upon his assurance of securing the job. Subsequently, the applicant stated that the form had been submitted and recommended by the General Manager and demanded further money, which was also paid. After some months, the applicant stated that fifteen candidates were required to be recruited together, failing which her daughter’s application would be stopped. Thereafter, upon the complainant’s request, the applicant also agreed to arrange railway jobs for her brother Kunal Sahu and husband Shubhanshu Jumde, and accordingly took their documents and money. The applicant continued to demand money in installments from time to time. On 03.05.2024, the applicant arranged medical examinations of the complainant’s daughter and two others at District Hospital, Pandri, and took Shikha Sahu and another person to Bhopal for an interview, where he demanded and received an amount ranging 3 between Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-. In July 2024, the applicant again took the complainant’s daughter along with four others to Bhopal, and on 25.07.2024, he demanded and collected Rs. 2,20,000/- in cash, stating that the same was to be paid to senior railway ofÏcials. He asked them to wait at the railway station, later returned, claimed that the work was done, and brought them back to Raipur. After repeated enquiries, the applicant provided call letters and stated that the candidates were required to go to Vadodara, Gujarat, for training in October 2024. The complainant’s father Chaitram Sahu also accompanied them to Vadodara. There again, the applicant demanded and took Rs. 2,20,000/- in cash, claiming it was required to be paid before training, and asked them to wait outside the training centre. The applicant himself went inside and later informed them that the training batch was full and that they would be accommodated in the next batch, after which he brought them back to Raipur. On 05.11.2024, the applicant again got the complainant’s daughter and her husband medically examined, stating that the earlier medical certificates were no longer valid. Further, by deceiving Kunal Sahu on the pretext of arranging employment in the Railways and providing a vehicle, the applicant compelled him to purchase a Kia Seltos car bearing registration No. CG-04-PS-5678, made him sign an agreement for monthly payment of Rs. 55,000/-, and took Rs. 55,000/- in cash as a security deposit. When no payment was received for 3–4 months, upon enquiry, the applicant falsely claimed that a consolidated payment for seven months had 4 been deposited by cheque amounting to Rs. 3,80,000/- in Bank of Baroda, Pandri Branch. However, upon verification, it was found that no such cheque had been deposited. In total, an amount of Rs. 14,37,063/- was taken by the applicant from the complainant and her family members on the false promise of providing railway employment and vehicle facilities. It was further discovered that the said vehicle, after being involved in an accident and sent for repair at Labhandi Showroom, was not being used for railway purposes but was being run in the private sector under Avaya Car (Varaj) Car Private Limited. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has never committed any offence as alleged and that the true and correct facts were neither properly asserted nor ascertained by the complainant prior to lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, and the report has been lodged with a mala fide intention merely to falsely implicate the present applicant. The allegations are general and vague in nature, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, and suffer from an inordinate delay of 4 months and 5 days in lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the present applicant has been roped in only with an intention to extort money. He further submits that there existed mutual financial transactions between the applicant and the complainants Shikha Sahu and Chetna Sahu, copies of which are already part of the charge-sheet. The applicant himself transferred 5 various amounts, including Rs. 60/-, Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 70/-, Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- on 24.10.2024, and other amounts to the bank accounts of the complainants, which clearly establishes prior mutual dealings and the relevant bank statements are annexed as Annexure A/3. It is also submitted that there was a love relationship between the applicant and complainant Shikha Sahu, and upon the applicant’s refusal to marry her, the present false F.I.R. was lodged. Further, the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6269/2025 vide order dated 08.10.2025, annexed as Annexure A/4, and the case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing. With regard to the complainant Shubhanshu Jumde, it is submitted that his allegation of payment in cash is unsupported by any documentary proof. He lastly submits that the present application is bona fide, and there is no material on record to constitute the alleged offences and the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025 and has no previous record and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and and submits that the applicant has cheated the complainant and obtained Rs. 14,37,063 from the complainant on the pretext of providing Job and thereafter, he failed to do so, as such, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 03.07.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further the fact that the co-accused namely Chaitram Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6269/2025 vide order dated 08.10.2025, annexed as Annexure A/4 and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, no further interrogation is required, the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Let the applicant – Rupesh Sahu, involved in Crime No. 256/2025 registered at Police Station- Purani Basti, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340, 238, 3(5) of B.N.S, 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:- (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 sufÏcient 7 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 applicant 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 sufÏcient cause, 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal