1 2025:CGHC:58889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9812 of 2025 Harendra Netam S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Aged About 57 Years Qwater No. 5 C J Pocket Maroda, Sector Bhilai, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through OfÏcer-In-Charge, Police Station - Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 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. 54/2024 registered at Police Station- Doundi, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Chandar Singh Nuruti, lodged a written report at the concerned Police Station alleging that the principal accused, Madar Khan @ Salim RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Khan, on the pretext of providing employment in the Forest Department on the post of Forest Guard and other posts, dishonestly cheated him and several other persons, in conspiracy with late Devendra Thakur, Pradeep Thakur and Harendra Netam. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated due to conspiracy and local political rivalry, and that his case stands on a different footing from the main accused Madar Khan and co-accused Pradeep Singh Thakur. It is submitted that the applicant, misled by the rumour spread by Madar Khan that he was the nephew of the then Forest Minister, had only contacted him for securing a job for his unemployed son, Mayank Netam, and had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the said accused. When the promised job was not provided, the applicant repeatedly demanded return of his money, upon which Madar Khan diverted the matter by involving Devendra Thakur and Pradeep Thakur, stating that they were collecting money from unemployed candidates. He further submits that the applicant remained in touch with Madar Khan only in the hope of recovering his own money, and some amounts collected from candidates were directly deposited in the account of Harendra Netam (present applicant). It is submitted that the pressure created by the cheated candidates ultimately led Devendra Thakur to commit suicide, as 3 reflected in the final report. The applicant, aged 57 years, is the sole breadwinner and suffering from ailments, further none of the 87 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date, and the case is triable by the JMFC. It is further urged that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than two years, a departmental inquiry is pending in which his presence is mandatory. He also submits that the co-accused persons Mayank Netam @ Raja and Smt. Fatima Bi Khan have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 08/2025 dated 24.01.2025 and MCRC No. 8406/2024 dated 03.12.2024 respectively, whereas the bail applications of main accused Madar Khan (MCRC No. 8223/2025 decided on 15.10.2025) and co-accused Pradeep Singh Thakur (MCRC No. 1447/2025 decided on 27.03.2025) have been rejected due to their active and primary involvement. Since the applicant’s role is limited and entirely different from the main conspirators. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.09.2024, charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is directly involved in the cheating racket operated by main accused Madar Khan @ Salim Khan, who, in conspiracy with late Devendra Thakur, Pradeep Singh Thakur and Harendra Netam, collected huge amounts from unemployed candidates on 4 the false pretext of providing government jobs in the Forest Department. It is argued that the applicant himself paid Rs.5,00,000/- for securing a job for his son and later remained in constant contact with the main accused, thereby actively participating in the circulation and movement of the cheated amounts. He further submits that several victims had transferred money, part of which was deposited in the account of Harendra Netam, showing continuous involvement of the applicant in the chain of transactions. The FIR narrates a well-planned conspiracy, leading to the suicide of co-accused Devendra Thakur due to pressure from cheated candidates. It is further submitted that the case involves serious economic offences affecting public faith, the applicant is in close nexus with the main accused, and the delay in lodging FIR is well-explained. He also submits that the main accused Madar Khan’s bail has already been rejected in MCRC No. 8223/2025 dated 15.10.2025 and co-accused Pradeep Singh Thakur’s bail was rejected in MCRC No. 1447/2025 dated 27.03.2025, and since the applicant played an essential role in the illegal recruitment scam, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts of the case and the rival submissions, it is evident that the principal role in the alleged cheating racket relating to recruitment in the Forest Department is attributed to the main accused Madar Khan @ Salim Khan and co-accused 5 Pradeep Singh Thakur, who were responsible for collecting money from unemployed candidates and assuring them of government jobs. The record reflects that the said act was attributed to the co- accused persons, and the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who actually committed the said act. It is further noted that the bail applications of the main accused Madar Khan and Pradeep Singh Thakur have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8223/2025 dated 15.10.2025 and MCRC No. 1447/2025 dated 27.03.2025, respectively, owing to their primary involvement. On the other hand, co-accused persons Mayank Netam @ Raja and Smt. Fatima Bi Khan, whose roles were comparatively lesser, have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 08/2025 dated 24.01.2025 and MCRC No. 8406/2024 dated 03.12.2024, respectively. The role of the present applicant is closer to that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail and significantly different from those whose bail has been rejected. The applicant is a 57-year-old government employee, is in jail since 11.09.2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable time considering that 87 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Harendra Netam, involved in Crime No. 54/2024 registered at Police Station- Doundi, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 6 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 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 7 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan