1 2025:CGHC:39523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6253 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Sande S/o Dhanram Sande Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Teacher L.B. Posted At Middle School Bela, District- Korba (C.G.) R/o House No. 406, Ward No. 23, Kashi Nagar, Tehsil And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station A.C.B/ E.O.W. Raipur , District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2025 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. 45/2025 registered at Police Station A.C.B./E.O.W., Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The prosecution story is that the applicant is a Teacher (L.B.), the complainant is a Headmaster, and the complainant’s wife, Smt. Garima Chouhan, is an Assistant Teacher (L.B.). During the process of rationalization, although she was well aware that she had not been ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.07 20:27:41 +0530 2 appointed on the basis of any disability certificate, she subsequently obtained such a certificate during the course of her service and produced it before the competent authority. As a result, another teacher, namely Varsha Hardaha, was declared a surplus teacher. However, with the assistance of the present applicant, Varsha Hardaha preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, and was successful. Her transfer order was quashed by the D.E.O., Korba, on the ground that the complainant’s wife had not been appointed as a disabled candidate and had secured the disability certificate during service, which was in violation of the rationalization policy. A copy of the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WPS No. 5088/2025 and the consequential order passed in favour of Varsha Hardaha by the D.E.O., Korba, are filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/4 and ANNEXURE A/5, respectively. 3. Due to the above developments, the complainant’s wife was called for counselling under the rationalization policy on 16.07.2025 and was transferred on 17.07.2025 from Primary School, Kosla, Block and District Korba, to Primary School, Darga, Block and District Korba. The allegation against the applicant is that he demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant to somehow prevent the rationalization- based transfer of the complainant’s wife, after the order passed in favour of Varsha Hardaha in WPS No. 5088/2025 by the Hon’ble High Court. A copy of the counselling letter and list dated 16.07.2025 is filed and marked as ANNEXURE P/6 (colly), and a copy of the rationalization transfer order dated 17.07.2025 concerning the complainant’s wife is filed and marked as ANNEXURE A/7. In connection with the aforesaid allegations, a trap party was organized by the police of Police Station A.C.B./E.O.W., Bilaspur, at the house of the complainant, and the 3 applicant was arrested based on these allegations under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the police of A.C.B./E.O.W., Bilaspur (C.G.) on 17.07.2025. A copy of the applicant’s arrest information is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/3. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person falsely implicated in the case. He submits the applicant has never demanded the alleged amount from the complainant. In fact, the issue pertained to the case of one Varsha Hardaha, whose representation was duly considered by the D.E.O., Korba, in accordance with the rationalization policy. The wife of the complainant was the only other surplus teacher left at the school. He also submits that the applicant, being merely a Teacher (L.B.), holds no administrative or appointing authority in transfer matters. Under the rationalization policy, only the Collector and the Joint Director, Bilaspur, are competent authorities. Therefore, the applicant had no role or power to influence or prevent the transfer of the complainant’s wife. He submits that the allegations made by the complainant are false, frivolous, and aimed solely at implicating the applicant out of personal vendetta, as the applicant had assisted Varsha Hardaha in filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Following the Court’s order, the complainant’s wife, who had not originally been treated as surplus, was rightly declared surplus and transferred. He also submits that the trap laid by the ACB/EOW at the complainant’s house was based on a concocted story. The applicant was neither caught red-handed nor was any tainted money found in his possession. No phenolphthalein marks were found on his hands, and the money was recovered only from the complainant’s house. Therefore, there is no direct or indirect link between the applicant and the alleged demand or acceptance of bribe. He submits that the 4 complainant’s wife was already transferred on the same date as the alleged trap. Therefore, the question of demanding money to prevent a transfer that had already taken place is illogical and unsustainable. The applicant would have had no reason to visit the complainant’s house after the transfer order had already been executed. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 17.07.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court. He submits that the applicant allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant to somehow prevent the rationalization-based transfer of the complainant’s wife, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to regular bail in this case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and further, the fact that the applicant was neither caught red-handed while accepting any illegal gratification nor was any tainted money recovered from his possession, and that no phenolphthalein marks were found on the hands of the applicant during the alleged trap proceedings, further, the alleged bribe amount was recovered only from the house of the complainant, moreover, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, though the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case, the applicant is in jail since 17.07.2025, 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. 5 8. Let the Applicant – Vinod Kumar Sande, involved in Crime No. 45/2025 registered at Police Station A.C.B./E.O.W., Raipur, District Raipur (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 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 6 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. 9. 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