1 2025:CGHC:35550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5429 of 2025 Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey S/o Late Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 43 Years Post- Sanganak In Community Health Center, Udaipur, Distt- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) R/o Village Jamdih, Tahsil Udaipur, Distt- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o House of Uttam Dubey, Gangapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing (Eow)/ Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raipur- ACB Unit, Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, 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/Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Raipur, ACB Unit, 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 prosecution story, a complaint was made by an employee of the department alleging that the accused persons had demanded an ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:28:25 +0530 2 amount of Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification for releasing the payment related to traveling allowance bills. On 01.05.2025, both the accused persons were caught accepting the amount of Rs. 10,000/- in a trap proceeding and were arrested immediately. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person falsely implicated in the case. He submits the applicant has no authority to pass or withhold any employee’s pay bill or any other bill, and he has no role to play in the alleged offence. The alleged amount has not been seized or recovered from the present applicant. He further submits that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- which was sanctioned towards the TA bills of the complainant, was deposited in his account maintained in Central Bank, Namnakala, Ambikapur, way back on 26.03.2025 by the District Treasury, Ambikapur. Hence, there was no occasion for demanding illegal gratification for clearing the bills. He also submits that the applicant has been unnecessarily roped into the alleged crime due to animosity. 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 Nanda Ram Painkra, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for providing a 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 3 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 – Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey, involved in Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station EOW/Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Raipur, ACB Unit, 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 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 4 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