MCRC/9050/2026 of SHUBHAM MISHRA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 12 October 2026

1. This is the First 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. 34/2026 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Jashpur, District : Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 238, 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The complainant, Ravindra Kumar, lodged a complaint to the effect that Muneshwar and Shubham had promised to provide him a government job. On this assurance, the complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- through PhonePe into Muneshwar’s account, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash, and Rs. 10,000/- into Shubham’s account. However, despite repeated assurances, no appointment was provided. When the complainant demanded the money back, the accused persons promised repayment but failed to return the amount. Meanwhile, three other persons also came forward alleging that Muneshwar and Shubham had duped them of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 2,60,000/-, and Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively, on the promise of providing government jobs. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the applicant and he was arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, whereas there is no material on record to establish any financial transaction between the complainant and the present applicant. He further submits that the main allegation of defrauding the complainant and other persons is against the co-accused Muneshwar, and that although the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is one of the named accused persons who grabbed a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- from the complainant and four other persons by luring them with the promise of government jobs, which indicates his active involvement in the commission of the said offence; therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. It is a settled principle of law that the Court’s role at the stage of bail is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case. In the present case, there are specific and direct allegations on record indicating that the applicant, acting in concert with the co- accused person, namely Muneshwar grabbed a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- from the complainant and four other persons by luring them with the promise of government job.

7. Mr. Tiwari contends that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been filed, however the mere filing of the charge-sheet does not absolve the applicant of the liability cast upon him. Furthermore, the veracity of the allegations leveled in the FIR cannot be evaluated at this stage in light of the defense raised by Mr. Tiwari.

8. Having regard to the overt act attributed to the applicant, the gravity of the offence, and the prima facie material available in the case diary indicating his active participation in commission of afore-stated offence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for the grant of regular bail at this stage.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. -

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

JUDGE A j i n k y a