1 2025:CGHC:13136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 386 of 2025 Naresh Sahu S/o Shri Hriram Sahu Aged About 38 Years Than Posted As Revenue Inspector, Mungeli, R/o Village Sangvakapa, Post Devri, Police Station And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Wing, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 19.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 09/2025, registered at Police Station – Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Wing, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 07 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, amended Act of 2018. 2. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant in the instant case Shri Vaibhav Soni has filed a complaint against the applicant, the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 complainant alleges that the complainant has submitted an application to the Tehsildar Mungeli for the demarcation of his father’s land, the Tehsildar Mungeli has directed the applicant to conduct the demarcation in accordance with the order dated 18.11.2024, the complainant when on 19.11.2024 approached to the applicant, the applicant had stated that the and of the complainant is large in size and thereafter he has to bear certain expenses far the same and applicant then asked the complainant to meet the Patwari who is co-accused in the present case, the complainant when on 19.11.2024 approached to the applicant, the applicant had stated that the land of the complainant is large in size and therefore he has to bear certain expenses for the demarcation and applicant then asked the complainant to meet the Patwari who is co- accused in the present case, the complainant when met the Patwari, a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made by him to conduct the demarcation. On receiving such complaint by the complaint, the ACB has organized a trap in which the co-accused persons have been arrested red-handed from the place of incident. Hence, this application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is completely innocent and further submitted that the applicant with the co- accused namely Shri Sunil Jaiswal had conducted demarcation of the lands of the family members of the complainant namely Shri Murari Soni on which certain lands of the father of the complainant was found which after mutual understandings between the family member wer handed over to the Murari Soni similarly one more demarcation was conducted in which also certain lands which were in possession of by the father of the complainant was found which after mutual understandings between the family members were handed over to the Samarth Soni, the complainant was aggrieved by the said demarcations and therefore he he has falsely 3 implicated the applicant with the co-accused in a false case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the complainant in the instant case Shri Vaibhav Soni has filed a complaint against the applicant, the complainant alleges that the complainant has submitted an application to the Tehsildar Mungeli for the demarcation of his father’s land, the Tehsildar Mungeli has directed the applicant to conduct the demarcation in accordance with the order dated 18.11.2024, the complainant when on 19.11.2024 approached to the applicant, the applicant had stated that the and of the complainant is large in size and thereafter he has to bear certain expenses far the same and applicant then asked the complainant to meet the Patwari who is co-accused in the present case, the complainant when on 19.11.2024 approached to the applicant, the applicant had stated that the land of the complainant is large in size and therefore he has to bear certain expenses for the demarcation and applicant then asked the complainant to meet the Patwari who is co- accused in the present case, the complainant when met the Patwari, a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made by him to conduct the demarcation. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available, it transpires that the complainant in the instant case Shri 4 Vaibhav Soni has filed a complaint against the applicant, the complainant alleges that the complainant has submitted an application to the Tehsildar Mungeli for the demarcation of his father’s land, the Tehsildar Mungeli has directed the applicant to conduct the demarcation in accordance with the order dated 18.11.2024, the complainant when on 19.11.2024 approached to the applicant, the applicant had stated that the and of the complainant is large in size and thereafter he has to bear certain expenses far the same and applicant then asked the complainant to meet the Patwari who is co-accused in the present case, the complainant when on 19.11.2024 approached to the applicant, the applicant had stated that the land of the complainant is large in size and therefore he has to bear certain expenses for the demarcation and applicant then asked the complainant to meet the Patwari who is co- accused in the present case, the complainant when met the Patwari, a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made by him to conduct the demarcation., thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Naresh Sahu, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 09/2025, registered at Police Station – Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Wing, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 07 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, amended Act of 2018, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti