1 2025:CGHC:5771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 884 of 2025 Shantanu Bhardwaj S/o Shri Geetaram Bhardwaj Aged About 38 Years R/o Madwa, Chowki Giraudhpuri, P.S. Gidhouri Tundra, Dist- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Lawan, District – Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, C.G. …. Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants arrested in connection with Crime No. 194/2024 registered at Police Station – Lawan, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Lekhram Sahu lodged the written complaint stating that the present applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 and co-accused Man Prasad Panikra has given the assurance to the complainant that they can arrange the job of forest guard for him in forest department and for that they have received total 8,00,000/- from the applicant, that the complainant has transferred 1,00,000/- in account of co-accused Man Prasad Painkra and remaining 7,00,000/-, he has given the amount to the present applicant through Bank Account, phone pay and cash total of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the above mentioned amount was given on 19.01.2023, 20.01.2023, 23.01.2023 and 24.01.2023, respectively, but till date the applicant and co- accused have failed to arrange the job for him. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicants are in jail since 16.09.2024, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant and co-accused Man Prasad Panikra has given the assurance to the complainant that they can arrange the job of forest guard for him in forest department and for that they have received total 8,00,000/- from the applicant, that the complainant has transferred 1,00,000/- in account of co-accused Man Prasad Painkra and remaining 7,00,000/-, he has given the amount to the present applicant through Bank Account, phone pay and cash total of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the above mentioned amount was given on 19.01.2023, 20.01.2023, 23.01.2023 and 24.01.2023, respectively, but no any job has been provided to the complainant and the 3 applicant has cheated the complainant by receiving money through him on the pretext of providing job. It is further submitted that there are a total of 24 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, out of which there are only 5 antecedents about which the explanation has been given that the trial Court has enlarged the applicant on bail with respect to the said cases, but no any plausible explanation has been given about the rest of 19 cases, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant and co-accused Man Prasad Panikra has given the assurance to the complainant that they can arrange the job of forest guard for him in forest department and for that they have received total 8,00,000/- from the applicant, that the complainant has transferred 1,00,000/- in account of co-accused Man Prasad Painkra and remaining 7,00,000/-, he has given the amount to the present applicant through Bank Account, phone pay and cash total of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the above mentioned amount was given on 19.01.2023, 20.01.2023, 23.01.2023 and 24.01.2023, respectively, but no any job has been provided to the complainant and the applicant has cheated the complainant by receiving money through him on the pretext of providing job, further the fact that there are a total of 24 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, out of which there are only 5 antecedents about which the explanation has been given that the trial Court has enlarged the applicant on bail with 4 respect to the said cases, but no any plausible explanation has been given about the rest of 19 cases, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant – Shantanu Bhardwaj involved in Crime No. 194/2024 registered at Police Station – Lawan, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the IPC, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Rajshekhar