Chhattisgarh high court denies bail in 'cash for jobs' scam, orders prosecution of complainant for involvement
TNN | Feb 1, 2025, 01.07 PM IST
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court recently denied bail to an accused in a "cash for jobs" fraud case, highlighting its growing concern over the increasing prevalence of such scams, particularly those targeting employment in the judiciary.
The court also directed criminal prosecution against the complainant in the case, observing that they were not an innocent victim but an active participant in the illegal act of attempting to secure a job through illicit means.
The case involved a complaint filed by Sanjay Das, who alleged that Suman Singh Rajput and her brother, Jay Singh, defrauded him and his friend, Ajay Pal, of Rs 5,15,000 by promising them clerk positions at the Bilaspur high court.
The accused allegedly provided a fabricated WhatsApp message with a high court advertisement number and collected money under the pretext of processing job applications. When the complainant discovered that no such vacancies existed, he filed a police complaint.
Jay Singh, the accused, argued that he was falsely implicated due to his familial relationship with the main accused, Suman Singh, and that he merely allowed his sister to use his bank account. He claimed no direct involvement in the alleged fraud and stated that the matter stemmed from a financial dispute between the complainant and his sister.
The prosecution, however, argued that the money was deposited into Jay Singh's account through PhonePe and Paytm, prima facie indicating his involvement. They also pointed out the recovery of a portion of the defrauded amount from the accounts of both the accused.
After reviewing the case diary, the high court observed that the complainant indeed deposited money into the accounts of the accused siblings. The court also took note of the increasing number of such fraud cases, where individuals are cheated under the guise of providing govt jobs.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the fact that the accused received money for securing govt jobs, and the evidence presented in the case diary, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting bail.
In a significant observation, the high court expressed its deep concern over the rising instances of "cash for jobs" fraud, particularly those involving the high court and district courts.
The court noted that despite repeated public notices issued by the high court registry cautioning against such scams, and despite information published on the high court website and in local newspapers, people continue to fall prey to these fraudulent schemes.
The court emphasised that the complainant in this case was not an innocent party, as he himself attempted to secure a job through unlawful means.
The court stated that such actions cannot be justified and that the complainant was also liable for criminal prosecution. Consequently, the Registrar General of the high court was directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the complainant as well.
The high court stressed the need to discourage such practices, which tarnish the image of the judiciary. It directed the Registrar General to take appropriate action against the complainant and to take further steps to raise public awareness about these scams. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrar General for immediate action.
The court also directed criminal prosecution against the complainant in the case, observing that they were not an innocent victim but an active participant in the illegal act of attempting to secure a job through illicit means.
The case involved a complaint filed by Sanjay Das, who alleged that Suman Singh Rajput and her brother, Jay Singh, defrauded him and his friend, Ajay Pal, of Rs 5,15,000 by promising them clerk positions at the Bilaspur high court.
The accused allegedly provided a fabricated WhatsApp message with a high court advertisement number and collected money under the pretext of processing job applications. When the complainant discovered that no such vacancies existed, he filed a police complaint.
Jay Singh, the accused, argued that he was falsely implicated due to his familial relationship with the main accused, Suman Singh, and that he merely allowed his sister to use his bank account. He claimed no direct involvement in the alleged fraud and stated that the matter stemmed from a financial dispute between the complainant and his sister.
The prosecution, however, argued that the money was deposited into Jay Singh's account through PhonePe and Paytm, prima facie indicating his involvement. They also pointed out the recovery of a portion of the defrauded amount from the accounts of both the accused.
After reviewing the case diary, the high court observed that the complainant indeed deposited money into the accounts of the accused siblings. The court also took note of the increasing number of such fraud cases, where individuals are cheated under the guise of providing govt jobs.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the fact that the accused received money for securing govt jobs, and the evidence presented in the case diary, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting bail.
In a significant observation, the high court expressed its deep concern over the rising instances of "cash for jobs" fraud, particularly those involving the high court and district courts.
The court noted that despite repeated public notices issued by the high court registry cautioning against such scams, and despite information published on the high court website and in local newspapers, people continue to fall prey to these fraudulent schemes.
The court emphasised that the complainant in this case was not an innocent party, as he himself attempted to secure a job through unlawful means.
The court stated that such actions cannot be justified and that the complainant was also liable for criminal prosecution. Consequently, the Registrar General of the high court was directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the complainant as well.
The high court stressed the need to discourage such practices, which tarnish the image of the judiciary. It directed the Registrar General to take appropriate action against the complainant and to take further steps to raise public awareness about these scams. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrar General for immediate action.