Chattisgarh High Court
Swapnil Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:23833
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4444 of 2025
Swapnil Dubey S/o Ashok Dubey Aged About 44 Years R/o Boriyakhurd,
Gokul Vihar Near Water Tank, P S Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.).
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, District- Raipur
(C.G.).
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate
For Res./State : Miss Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government
Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13/06/2025
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant
of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection
with Crime No. 54/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District
Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Anjana
Gahirtwar, filed a written complaint at Civil Lines Police Station alleging
therein that Devendra Joshi, her uncle, had promised to help her to
secure a government job through his connections with high-ranking
officials. In January 2021, when the complainant visited her uncle's
home in Raipur, he claimed to have connections with big officers and
could arrange government jobs. Later, when a vacancy for Food
Inspector was announced, Devendra Joshi allegedly contacted the
complainant via WhatsApp, asking her to fill out the form and
demanded Rs.25,00,000/- for the process. The complainant filled out
the form online in the year 2022 and paid the money. After the exam,
Devendra Joshi assured her of guaranteed recruitment as a Food
Inspector. When the results were announced with the complainant
scoring low marks, Devendra Joshi told her that there would be
another result through special recommendation. Later, he provided her
with a document at his Raipur home showing her name in the list of
selected candidates. After that, Devendra Joshi called the complainant
on WhatsApp and said her name had been selected, but she needed
to pay the remaining amount before counseling. The complainant then
gave Devendra Joshi Rs.6,35,000/- on different dates as per his
demand. She also transferred Rs.3,10,000/- to his daughter Piyusha
Joshi's account. Additionally, she gave Devendra Joshi cash amounts
of Rs.5,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/-. Devendra Joshi told
her to report to the Food and Civil Supplies Department for document
verification, making her believe that she had secured the job. However,
when the final list of selected candidates was released, her name
wasn't there. When she asked Devendra Joshi about it, he demanded
3
more money, and she paid Rs. 7,45,000/-. In total, she paid him Rs.
25,00,000/-, but didn't get the job. Devendra Joshi stopped attending
her calls and started delaying the process. The co-accused, Jhagita
Joshi, was present during these transactions and assured her that the
job would be secured. Both Devendra and Jhagita assured her that the
money would be refunded if the job didn't materialize. The complainant
also learned that Devendra Joshi had taken Rs.25 lakhs each from
others, including Gajendra Lahre, Kunal Dev, and Bhuneshwar
Sonwani, promising them to get jobs that didn't materialize. Based on
the complainant's written statement, aforementioned offence has been
registered against the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons
and subsequently, they were arrested. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicant has
not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in
offence in question. He would also submit that there were 9 accused
persons involved in the offence in question and out of 9 accused
persons, seven accused persons have already been granted bail by
this Court and it is further submitted that the main allegation has been
leveled against the co-accused Devendra Joshi who happened to be
the relative of the complainant and he alongwith his wife namely
Jhagita Joshi and daughter namely- Piyusha Joshi have committed
fraud with the complainant. He would also submit that the present
applicant has not been named in the FIR and only on the basis of
memorandum statements of the main accused- Devendra Joshi and
his wife Jhagita Joshi and other co-accused persons, the present
applicant has been arrested. He would further submit that co-accused,
Piyusha Joshi, who is daughter of the main accused, Davendra Joshi
4
and who received Rs. 3,10,000/- in her account as per his father's
direction has granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
05.03.2025 in MCRCA No.310/2025 and one co-accused, namely,
Haldhar Behra who is also one of the staff members has granted
regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 in MCRC No.
3037/2025 and the case of present applicant is distinguishable from
the case of the main co-accused- Devendra Joshi. The applicant is in
jail since 31.01.2025, further he has no criminal antecedents, charge-
sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its
conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the
respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the
applicant alongwith other co-accused persons alleged to have
committed fraud with the complainant and the complainant paid in
different installments in the name of providing government job for the
post of Food Inspector, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant,
particularly considering the fact that the applicant has not been named
in the FIR and only on the memorandum statements of the co-accused
persons namely Devendra Joshi and his wife he has been arrested
further considering the fact that the case of the present applicant is
distinguishable from the case of the main accused- Devendra Joshi
and also considering the fact that out of total 9 accused persons, 7
5
accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail and regular bail
by this Court, the applicant is in jail since 31.01.2025 and he has no
criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case,
this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant – Swapnil Dubey, involved in Crime No. 54/2025
registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC,
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each 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 him under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during
trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation
under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fail
to appear before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate
proceedings against them, 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
6case, (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 applicants are 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 him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Amita
Digitally signed
AMITA by AMITA
DUBEY
DUBEY Date: 2025.06.14
18:12:32 +0530