1 2025:CGHC:35549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4712 of 2025 Nanda Ram Painkra S/o Late Ramdas Aged About 57 Years Occupation Accountant Posted At Primary Health Center Udaypur, Present Address Transit Hostel CHC Udaypur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Permanent Address Ward No. 8, Mahuapara, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Eow/ACB Raipur, Unit ACB Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 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. 32/2025 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB Raipur, Unit ACB Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Rohit Khalkho, lodged a complaint against co-accused Koushlendra Prasad Pandey, alleging that he had demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:28:24 +0530 2 complainant for processing his traveling allowance bill. Based on this complaint, the officers of the ACB caught the applicant red-handed with a sum of ₹10,000/-. Accordingly, an offence under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been registered against the applicant and the co-accused in Crime No. 32/2025, and the applicant has been arrested for the alleged commission of the offence. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person falsely implicated in the case. He submits the complainant had lodged a complaint only against the co-accused, Koushlendra Prasad Pandey, and not against the present applicant. When the ACB officers asked the complainant to record the voice of Koushlendra Prasad Pandey, the complainant went to the office where the co-accused was posted and recorded his voice, in which the co- accused demanded money (bribe) from the complainant. He further submits that the present applicant never demanded any kind of bribe and is not an authorized person to process the traveling allowance bill of the complainant. However, he has been falsely implicated in the alleged commission of the offence. He also submits that the complainant had given the bribe money to the co-accused, Koushlendra Prasad Pandey, and not to the present applicant. The present applicant had given a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the co-accused, Koushlendra Prasad Pandey, through PhonePe on 21.06.2023, 22.06.2023, and 09.07.2023. When the marriage of the applicant’s son was fixed for 22.05.2025, the applicant demanded repayment of his money from the co-accused. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was returned to the applicant through PhonePe on 13.04.2025. On the date of the incident, i.e., 01.05.2025, when the co- accused accepted the bribe money from the complainant, he handed over the said bribe money to the present applicant, stating that the 3 remaining amount would be paid as early as possible. He submits that the applicant accepted the said money without any knowledge that it was bribe money. Thereafter, the ACB officers seized the said amount from the present applicant and falsely implicated him in the alleged offence. A copy of the transaction statement of PhonePe number +919669032896 belonging to the present applicant is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-2. He further submits that the voice recording submitted by the prosecution agency does not contain the voice of the present applicant, and the complainant himself has not made any complaint against the applicant regarding any demand of money. The voice recorder submitted contains the voice of the co-accused demanding money from the complainant. Therefore, without proper verification of the applicant’s voice, he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, despite the applicant never having demanded any amount from the complainant. He also submits that the applicant is a government servant, and due to the said complaint, he has already been suspended from his service. The relevant documents have already been seized by the authorities, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for an indefinite period, particularly when the alleged offence is not prima facie made out against the applicant. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 01.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court. He submits that the applicant, in connivance with the other co-accused, namely Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for providing a 4 traveling allowance bill to the complainant. 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. 7. Let the Applicant – Nanda Ram Painkra, involved in Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB Raipur, Unit ACB Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 12 of the 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 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 5 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