1 2025:CGHC:33849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5609 of 2025 Md Fariduddin Farooqui S/o M.Q. Farooqui Aged About 41 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Md Fariduddinan Faruki In Order Sheet) S/o M.Q. Farooqui (Wrongly) Mentioned As Mq Faruki In Ordersheet) Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No 11, Chandani Chauk Farooqui Gali (Wrongly) Mentioned As Faruki Gali In Ordersheet) Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent of Police Economic Offence Wing/ Anti Corruption Bureau District Raipur (Branch Bilaspur ) Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 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. 34/25 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, District Raipur (Branch Bilaspur) (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The prosecution’s story in brief is that the applicant is a clerk in the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 12:14:44 +0530 2 District Education Office, Raigarh. The complainant had fought and won a case before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which directed the District Education Officer to release his wages within a stipulated time. The complainant submitted several representations to the District Education Officer, and later, while giving a representation to the applicant (who was working as a clerk), the applicant allegedly demanded Rs. 20,000/- to get his work done. The complainant approached the respondents, and a trap was laid. On 02.05.2025, the complainant gave Rs. 5,000/- to the applicant and recorded the conversation. The conversation also captures the applicant asking the complainant to bring a copy of the order with him, stating that the work had already been completed. Later, on 05.05.2025, the complainant brought Rs. 10,000/- and a trap was set using notes covered with phenolphthalein powder. When the complainant arrived, the applicant asked him the reason for his visit, to which the complainant replied that he had brought money for him. The conversation records the applicant advising the complainant to seek 12% interest and offering to assist him. The complainant asked the applicant to speak to the other clerks regarding the 12% interest, but the applicant refused, stating that the complainant would have to speak to them himself, and that it would be beneficial for him to claim 12% interest. The money was recovered from the window of the office, leading to the registration of the present case. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person falsely implicated in the case. He submits that no prima facie case has been made out against the applicant. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant 3 case. He submits that even if the prosecution story is accepted in its entirety, the signing authority in the matter was the District Education Officer and not the applicant. No prosecution sanction, as mandated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 218 of the BNSS, was filed along with the charge sheet, and hence, the cognizance taken against the applicant is illegal and bad in law. He submits that the alleged money was recovered from the window of the office and not from the applicant. There is no prima facie evidence of a demand for bribe or recovery from the applicant, even as per the prosecution story itself. He also submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of events connecting the alleged demand to its acceptance, as required under law. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 555. He submits that there is no demand for bribe reflected in the audio recording relied upon by the prosecution. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that even as per the prosecution story, the order in favour of the complainant had already been passed before the complainant allegedly approached the applicant with money for the first time. He submits that it has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Courts that mere recovery of money, without proof of demand and acceptance, does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 05.05.2025, 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 4 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 withdrawal of the complainant's salary of Rs. 2 lakh for a period between October 2014 to April 2017, 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 05.05.2025, 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 – Md Fariduddin Farooqui, involved in Crime No. 34/25 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, District Raipur (Branch Bilaspur) (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 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 5 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