Bastar (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Of
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:11215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1839 of 2025 Sukhram Suryawanshi S/o Farsuram Suryawanshi Aged About 39 Years Caste- Bhatra, R/o Village- Podaguda, Post- Sarguda, Police Station- Parpa, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.03.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 134/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur District : Bastar (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant namely Padman Kashyap lodged the FIR on 11.03.2024 under Section 420 2 of IPC against the present applicant/accused alleging therein that the applicant was taken sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- from the 17 different persons including Padman Kashyap with assurance that all the 17 persons are get employment in the post of Peon or Assistant Grade- III in District and Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. On such assurance the applicant was taken sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- in detail from complainant Rs. 53,000/-, Anita Kashyap Rs.50,000/-, Bablu Yadav Rs.52,000/-, Kamlesh Rs.50,000/-, Balsingh Kashyap Rs. 50,000/-, Dinesh Kashyap Rs.50,000/-, Radhamani Rs.50,000/-, Sampatti Mourya Rs.50,000/-, Dayamati Mourya Rs.55,000/-, Bharti Kashyap Rs.50,000/-, Balram Baghel Rs.50,000/-, Mahadev Rs. 50,000/-, Rereka Rs.50,000/-, Jageshwar Kashyap Rs.50,000/-, Yogesh Nath Rs.1,00,000/-, Narendra Kachch Rs.1,50,000/- and Ishika Mourya Rs.2,00,000/- but ultimately they are not given employment and being frustrated with the assurance of the accused/applicant, they lodged the FIR against him, during the course of investigation there is afÏdavit was executed by the applicant that he will return the whole amount in installment and same was returned to the complainant and other persons, the afÏdavit is executed on 04.08.2024, after due investigation police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, & 471 of IPC, during the course of investigation the applicant is arrested on 08.11.2024 since from that he is on jail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this crime. He further submits that 3 the applicant is working as a Teacher (LB) in Higher Secondary School, Karkapara, Bade Kaklur 2, Tahsil Bastanar, District Bastar and he is only earning member of his family, he has no connection with any of the person of District Court employee. He also submits that the applicant was taken the loan from the complainant and other persons for his personal need while he is not able to return the amount, the complainant and other persons leveled allegation of cheating and fraud against the applicant, the loan amount sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- is promise to be returned to the complainant and other persons and same was refunded to them as per the date mentioned in afÏdavit. He further submits that the fabricated appointment order as alleged, is not sent by applicant, the complainant and other persons are created it to involve the applicant in false crime. The complainant and other persons are given Rs. 50,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 1,50,000/- such amount has been given, it is known to everyone that such amount no public employment or government job will be given to anyone and the whole amount of Rs. 11,60,000/- taken from 17 different persons, they are also known that government job will not be given in such amount, knowing this all facts they are created plan to implicate the applicant in false case for recovery of their amount. He also submits that due to long detention, his government job is also be left and now his family is suffering from financial crisis and the applicant is in jail since 08.11.2024, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail 5. 6. 4 application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before competent Court. He submits that the applicant allegedly collected a total of Rs. 11,60,000/- from 17 individuals, including the complainant Padman Kashyap, by promising them employment as Peons or Assistant Grade-III in the District and Sessions Judge's ofÏce in Jagdalpur. However, the applicant failed to do the same. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the applicant allegedly taken total of Rs. 11,60,000/- from 17 individuals, including the complainant Padman Kashyap, by promising them to provide job/employment as Peons or Assistant Grade-III in the District and Sessions Judge's OfÏce in Jagdalpur however, he failed to do so and when the complainants demanded their money back, the accused refused though, he has stated that the applicant has returned the money to all the 17 persons from whom he has taken for providing job in the concerned District Court as it cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant as it is a very serious crime which is rising day by day and this Court cannot ignore and encourage the same hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Sukhram Suryawanshi, involved in Crime No. 134/2024, registered at Police 5 Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur District : Bastar (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, is rejected at this stage. 8. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case as well as other individuals who claim to have been cheated by the applicant herein. Even though the money has been returned by the applicant to the complainant and other individuals, but offering of money by the complainant and other such individuals for getting employed through illegal modes, cannot be encouraged by this Court and has to be dealt strictly. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice