1 2025:CGHC:2508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8754 of 2024 Tekram Maheshwari S/o Lt. Jugutram Maheshwari, Aged About 59 Years Occupation- Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Revenue, OfÏce of Sdm Saja, District- Bemetara, R/o A/2, Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, New Puraina, P.S.- Teli Bandha, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S.- Anti Corruption Bureau, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2024, registered at Police Station –Anti Corruption Bureau, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the applicant, an SDO at Saja, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.15 16:48:30 +0530 2 demanded ₹25,000 to pass an order for land diversion under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Code. The complainant, the mother of the landowner, reported this to the ACB. On 25.10.2024, the applicant passed the order, but allegedly demanded the bribe beforehand. The ACB conducted a sting operation, and the complainant handed ₹10,000 to a co-accused, Gaukaran, instead of the applicant. The ACB arrested both accused and conducted a phenolphthalein test, which showed no color on the applicant's hand. However, the applicant was still arrested based on a voice recording, and ₹10,000 was seized. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that no evidence is available on record which determines the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged commission of offence and the prosecution agency has wrongfully arrested the applicant only on the basis of mere suspicion and even after conducting the test, no evidence against the applicant has been found. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 14.11.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature 3 and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that no evidence is available on record which determines the involvement of the present applicant and even after conducting the test, no evidence against the applicant has been found, further there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 14.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Tekram Maheshwari, involved in Crime No. 51/2024, registered at Police Station –Anti Corruption Bureau, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 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 sufÏcient 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 4 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 sufÏcient 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. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce 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 Preeti