In a significant ruling addressing fraudulent job recruitment schemes, the Chhattisgarh High Court has denied bail to an accused involved in a fake government job scam. The court also took an unprecedented step by ordering criminal prosecution of the complainant for attempting to secure a job through bribery.
Case Background
The case, MCRC No. 36 of 2025, involves the accused Jay Singh Rajput, a resident of Janjgir-Champa, who, along with his sister Suman Singh Rajput, allegedly defrauded individuals by promising them government jobs in exchange for money. The complainant, Sanjay Das, had filed a complaint alleging that he and his friend, Ajay Pal, were cheated out of ₹5,15,000 on the pretext of securing clerk positions in the Chhattisgarh High Court.
As per the prosecution, Suman Singh Rajput convinced the complainant that she could secure a government job for him using her contacts, provided he made an upfront payment. Believing the offer to be genuine, Sanjay Das and Ajay Pal transferred significant amounts through digital payment platforms like PhonePe and PayTM to the bank account of Jay Singh Rajput. However, when no job materialized, the complainant approached the police, leading to Crime No. 415/2024 being registered at Dipka Police Station, District Korba under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Legal Issues Before the Court
The case raised several legal questions, including:
1. Whether bail should be granted to the accused, Jay Singh Rajput, considering his role in the transaction.
2. Whether the complainant himself was complicit in an illegal act by attempting to secure a job through bribery.
Court Proceedings and Decision
The bail plea was argued by Advocate Aditya Kumar Mishra on behalf of the applicant, Jay Singh Rajput, while Government Advocate Supriya Upasane represented the State. Advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey appeared for the objector.
The defense contended that the accused, Jay Singh Rajput, had been falsely implicated and had no direct involvement in the fraud. It was argued that money was transferred into his account only because he had allowed his sister to use it in good faith. The defense also emphasized that the accused had not directly communicated with the complainant regarding the job offer.
On the other hand, the prosecution argued that financial transactions between the complainant and the accused established prima facie involvement in the fraud. The court took note of the fact that ₹3,67,500 was transferred to the accused’s account, and an additional ₹1,34,500 was recovered from the accounts of the accused and Suman Singh Rajput.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, after reviewing the case records, denied the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of job-related frauds and the rising trend of innocent job seekers falling prey to scams. The court observed:
“Looking at the rising cases of fraud where people are being cheated out of money in the name of government jobs, it is not deemed justifiable to grant bail to the applicant.”
Furthermore, the court took a strong stance against the complainant, Sanjay Das, stating that he himself had engaged in wrongful conduct by attempting to secure a job through illegitimate means. The court observed that despite repeated public warnings issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, people continued to fall for such scams, effectively making themselves complicit in unlawful activities.
Key Court Observations
– The complainant was not an entirely innocent victim, as he knowingly parted with money in an attempt to obtain a government job through unofficial means.
– Public warnings against job scams had been issued multiple times, yet people continued to engage in such transactions.
– The court directed the Registrar General to initiate criminal prosecution against the complainant, Sanjay Das, for attempting to bribe individuals to secure a job.
“The complainant cannot be said to be an innocent person as he himself has parted with money for getting a job in the High Court, which cannot be justified in any manner in the eyes of law. He too is liable for criminal prosecution.”
