1 2025:CGHC:25405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3435 of 2025 1 - Neeraj Verma S/o Shivprasad Verma Aged About 34 Years Patwari, P.H. No. 19, Village Lalmati, Tahsil Lundra, R/o Shantipara, Ward No. 8, Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Karmu Ram S/o Biphan Aged About 31 Years Assistant, R/o Village Sumerpur Nagesiya Para, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur- Unit ACB Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 23/2025, registered at Police Station : ACB/EOW Raipur- Unit ACB Ambikapur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that based on a complaint lodged by Pawan Kumar Pandey at the ACB Branch, Ambikapur on 04.04.2025, a trap was laid during which a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was recovered at the instance of applicant No. 2. It is alleged that applicant No. 1 had demanded the said amount for processing the mutation of certain lands. Accordingly, offences under the relevant provisions were registered against the applicants, and investigation in the matter is presently ongoing. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that applicant No. 1, being an office bearer of the Patwari Union of the concerned Tahsil, has been made a scapegoat. The applicants have been falsely implicated by land mafias after applicant No. 1 refused to unlawfully mutate certain lands despite being pressurized to do so. It is further submitted that applicant No. 2 accepted the money on behalf of applicant No. 1, and as a consequence, both have lost their jobs. The applicants are the sole earning members of their respective families, and their continued detention would cause undue hardship and financial distress to their dependents. Prolonged incarceration would also adversely affect their mental and psychological health, and their families would suffer as a result of their long detention. He also submits that the present applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 04.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicants and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that on 04.04.2025, a trap was laid during which a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was recovered at the instance of applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 1 had demanded the said amount for processing the mutation of certain lands. Therefore, the present applicants are not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicant No. 2 accepted the money Rs. 7,000/- on behalf of applicant No. 1, and as a consequence, both have lost their jobs and further the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and they have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 04.04.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Neeraj Verma and Karmu Ram, involved in Crime No. 23/2025, registered at Police Station : ACB/EOW Raipur- Unit ACB Ambikapur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 4 the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants 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 applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (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 5 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 them, in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan