1 2025:CGHC:33443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4544 of 2025 Bhanu Pratap Soni S/o Late Amarjeet Ram Soni Aged About 47 Years Occupation – Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 5, Village- Dumariya, Tahsil - Surajpur R/o Village- Nevra, Mandirpara, Post- Basdei, P.S.-Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 31/2025 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Beauro, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 2. That the complainant, Manish Jindiya, purchased land bearing Khasra No. 418/7, area 0.08 hectare, situated at Patwari Halka No. 19, Village – Nayanpur, through a registered sale deed. After the purchase, the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.17 11:14:42 +0530 2 concerned Tahsildar passed an order for the mutation of his name in the revenue records. However, despite several requests made by the complainant to the applicant to enter his name in the revenue records, the applicant, who was working as a Patwari, did not enter the complainant’s name in the revenue records. It is further alleged that for the purpose of selling the land, the complainant approached the applicant for the preparation of the boundary and demarcation of the land. At that time, the applicant illegally demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant for carrying out the said work. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, and upon receiving the complaint, the concerned police handed over a digital voice recorder to the complainant for verification of the complaint. Subsequently, on 08.04.2025, the complainant, along with Constable Upendra Yadav, went to the Patwari office, and at around 6:00 PM, the applicant called the complainant to a shop at Mandirpara, where, during the conversation, the applicant agreed to accept the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. After verification of the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, prepared a plan to conduct a trap on 01.05.2025 and sent the complainant to the office of the applicant to give the said amount. The present applicant accepted the amount with his right hand and kept it in the right pocket of his pants, and upon noticing the trap team, he took the money out from his pocket and placed it on the table. After preparing the Panchnama, the trap team recovered the said amount from the possession of the present applicant, and after completing all mandatory formalities, the police registered the alleged offence against the applicant and thereafter arrested him. 3. The Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person falsely implicated in the case. He submits that as per the 3 complaint, the land of the complainant is situated at Patwari Halka No. 19, Girwarganj, Tahsil - Surajpur (C.G.), but at the time of the incident, the applicant was not holding the post of Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 19, Girwarganj. He was posted at Patwari Halka No. 5, Dumariya, Tahsil - Surajpur, vide order dated 09.04.2025 issued by the S.D.O. (R), Surajpur, and in pursuance of the posting order dated 09.04.2025, he took charge of Patwari Halka No. 5, Village - Dumariya. One Rajaram Ravi was posted at Patwari Halka No. 19, Village - Girwarganj; therefore, the allegation of illegal demand from the complainant for the said work is totally false and baseless. He submits that regarding the allegation of entering the complainant’s name in the revenue record, it is submitted that the complainant’s name had already been mutated in the revenue record of the said land before the lodging of the complaint; therefore, the complaint made by the complainant is totally false and baseless. He also submits that the amount was not seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant, and the trap team recovered the said amount from the table; therefore, the alleged offence is not made out against the present applicant. Due to mala fide intentions regarding the posting of the applicant in place of one Patwari, namely Rajaram Ravi, who was earlier posted at Patwari Halka No. 5, the complainant lodged a false complaint against the present applicant at the instance of Rajaram Ravi. On the date of the incident, there was a conversation on the mobile phone between the complainant and Rajaram Ravi, which clearly shows that due to the instance of Rajaram Ravi, a false complaint was made against the present applicant. He submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the allegation of the applicant taking gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not proved, and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4 He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 01.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court. He submits that the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- for the demarcation of the complainant’s land, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to 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, and further the fact that the applicant has already been suspended from his duties due to his conduct, moreover, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 01.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Bhanu Pratap Soni, involved in Crime No. 31/2025 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Beauro, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties 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 5 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 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 applicant is 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek