Chhattisgarh High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in an FIR registered under Sections 4201, 342 of the Penal Code, 1860, a Single Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the application stating that there was prima facie involvement of the accused in the fraud, and it was not justifiable to grant bail considering the rise of such fraud cases. The Court also remarked how, despite warnings, people were falling for such scams and stated that the complainant was not fully innocent as he paid money to get a job, thus, he was liable to be criminally prosecuted.
Background
Allegedly, the complainant and the accused’s sister had been acquainted since school. In February 2023, the accused’s sister offered to secure a job for the complainant as a clerk at the High Court in Bilaspur, claiming that she could facilitate the appointment through her connections, but it would require an investment. After discussions with his friend, the complainant expressed interest in the job opportunity.
Thereafter, the accused’s sister and the accused demanded Rs 4,50,000 from the complainant and Rs. 3,00,000 from the complainant’s friend for the same. They also demanded money for processing the job application. In total, the complainant transferred Rs 3,67,500 to various mobile numbers provided by the accused. Similarly, the complainant’s friend transferred Rs 1,47,500. When the complainant inquired about the job status, the accused cited the transfer of a judge as the reason for the delay. In February 2024, the complainant visited the High Court and discovered that there was no such vacancy. The accused claimed that the recruitment process was confidential. The complainant thus filed a complaint alleging that the accused and his sister cheated him and his friend out of Rs 5,15,000 by promising jobs that did not exist. Accordingly, the FIR was registered.
Analysis
The Court stated that it appeared that the complainant deposited the money in the account of the accused persons through PhonePe and PayTM. This prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement in the offence. The Court also noted that an amount of Rs 3,67,500 was obtained by the accused persons and an amount of Rs 1,34.500 was recovered from their accounts.
Considering the rising fraud cases where people were cheated out of money in the name of a Government job, the Court stated that it was not justifiable to grant bail to the accused. Thus, the Court held that it was not a fit case for grant of regular bail.
Lastly, the Court remarked that such instances of cash-for-job scams were increasing day by day. Despite the Registry requesting the general public not to come in the allurement of anyone claiming to provide jobs in the High Court and District Courts of the State, information being published on Court websites as well as news items being published warning people in this regard, people were not paying any heed to such warnings, and were indulging in such activities thereby becoming easy targets for the touts.
The Court added that in the present case, the complainant could be said to be an innocent person as he parted with his money to get a job in the High Court, which was unjustifiable in the eyes of the law, thus, he too was liable for criminal prosecution. Stating this, the Court directed the Registrar General to initiate criminal prosecution against the complainant in order to discourage such practice that might tarnish the image of the pious institution of the Court.
[Jay Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 1797, decided on 29-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Aditya Kumar Mishra
For the respondent: Government Advocate Supriya Upasane and Advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
