1 2025:CGHC:48509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7605 of 2025 Jogeshwar Rajwade S/o Devlal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Rameshwarpur, Police Outpost- Latori, P.S. Jainagar, District- Surajpur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Anti Corruption Bureau Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant, Dhaneshwar Ram Paikra, submitted a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur. He stated that he had purchased a plot of land (Khasra No. 485, area 0.0900 hectare, Pa.Ha.No. 25) in Keshavnagar village in 2003 in the name of his first wife, Smt. Sunita Paikra, and had constructed a house on it in 2004. Since he is now residing with his second wife, the land was registered in 2008 in the names of his son, Rupesh Kumar Paikra, and daughter, Chhaya Paikra. Following the sudden death of his son in 2018 and his daughter’s marriage, he applied in April 2025 at the Tehsil Office, Surajpur, to have the land transferred to his own name. While attempting to complete the transfer, he met the applicant, Jogeshwar Rajwade, Assistant Grade 02, who demanded a bribe of Rs. 30,000. The applicant was subsequently caught accepting Rs. 25,000 from the complainant in exchange for the name transfer, giving rise to the present offence. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the complainant himself admits that the ownership and transfer of the disputed land is still pending before the Tehsil Office, Surajpur, and the applicant, being only an Assistant Grade-II, has no authority to effect such transfer. The alleged demand for a bribe is not legally established, as mere recovery of currency notes, without independent proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to prove guilt. The 3 applicant had no occasion or role to solicit any illegal gratification, since the land transfer decision lies exclusively with the Tehsildar or Revenue Officers. Furthermore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is unnecessary, as all relevant documentary evidence has already been seized and the alleged recovery completed. The applicant is in jail since 21.07.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant while serving as Assistant Grade-II at the Tehsil Office, Surajpur, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant, Dhaneshwar Ram Paikra, in exchange for facilitating the transfer of a disputed land in the complainant’s name. The applicant was allegedly caught accepting Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant, which forms the basis of the present offence under anti-corruption laws. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 21.07.2025, the fact that the though the applicant while serving as Assistant Grade-II at the Tehsil Office, Surajpur, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant, 4 Dhaneshwar Ram Paikra, in exchange for facilitating the transfer of a disputed land in the complainant’s name and caught accepting Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant, but considering the fact that it was a trap laid down by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the applicant has already been suspended from his service, further he has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Jogeshwar Rajwade, involved in Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 5 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil