1 2026:CGHC:6005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1111 of 2026 Shyam Sundar Rao S/o Kamleshwar Rao Aged About 50 Years R/o Sanyasi Para, Near Solapuri Mata Mandir, Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The earlier two bail application of the present applicant were rejected VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.03 17:40:31 +0530 2 on merits vide orders dated 17.12.2024 and 15.07.2025, in MCRC No(s). 8826 of 2024 and 5518 of 2025. 3. According to the prosecution story, a written complaint was submitted by one Devki Dhruw alleging that co-accused Swayam Sharma, falsely projecting himself as an INTUC worker, assured her of securing a government job in the Railway Department. In furtherance of this false representation, he, along with his wife Dhaneshwari Verma @ Preeti Sharma, operated a placement agency in the name and style of Sai Business Consultancy, Job Placement, situated at Progressive Point, Lalpur, Raipur (C.G.). Acting upon such inducement, the complainant Devki Dhruw, as well as several other persons, allegedly paid different amounts to the accused persons. The complainant specifically stated that she paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to co-accused Swayam Sharma. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that a total amount of Rs. 29,50,000/- was transferred by various victims into the bank accounts of co-accused Swayam Sharma and Dhaneshwari Verma @ Preeti Sharma. So far as the present applicant is concerned, only one victim, namely Kewal Narayan Sahu, has alleged that he paid an amount of Rs. 85,000/- to the applicant under similar false pretenses. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the present applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. This is the third bail application of the applicant and, out of 45 prosecution witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined so far, which clearly reflects that the prosecution is unnecessarily delaying the trial; 3 moreover, there are major omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as evident from the copies of depositions collectively filed as Annexure A-5. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely Dhaneshwari Verma @ Preeti Sharma, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure A-6). Although the applicant had earlier approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and his bail applications were rejected vide orders dated 02.06.2025 and 14.10.2025 (Annexure A- 7), the present circumstances justify reconsideration. The prosecution story is false and the evidence collected is not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicant guilty of the alleged offences. No offence has been committed by the applicant, who is about 50 years of age and has been languishing in jail since 02.09.2024; his continued long incarceration would adversely affect his future. In view of the prolonged detention, delay in trial, parity with the co-accused, and the absence of a prima facie case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the earlier two bail applications of the present applicant were rejected on merits vide orders dated 17.12.2024 and 15.07.2025 in MCRC Nos. 8826 of 2024 and 5518 of 2025. It was further submitted that the case pertains to cheating on the pretext of providing government jobs, wherein co-accused Swayam Sharma and his wife operated a fake placement agency and collected huge amounts from several victims, and as regards the present applicant, one victim has alleged payment of Rs. 85,000/- to him under similar false pretenses. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence, the 4 applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, including the rejection of the earlier two bail applications of the present applicant on merits, and further noting that out of 45 prosecution witnesses only 11 have been examined so far while the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined, indicating that the trial is still in progress, as well as the fact that one co-accused has been granted bail by this Court on the ground of being a lady whose husband is already in jail, and further observing that the present applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.09.2024, and that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Rajesh Sharma, who allegedly received Rs. 29,00,000/- for providing jobs, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present third bail application is allowed. 8. It is further directed that the Trial Court shall be at liberty to initiate and proceed with appropriate legal action, strictly in accordance with law, against all such persons who are found to have received money in connection with the alleged offence, without being influenced by any observations made herein. 9. Let the Applicant – Shyam Sundar Rao, involved in Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing 5 personal bond with two local 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 his, 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, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against his in accordance with law. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of further Six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 11. 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 vaibhav