1 2025:CGHC:53620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8719 of 2025 Manoj Pathak S/o Nand Kumar Pathak Aged About 40 Years R/o Harsh Kunj, Kalyan Sundaram Apartment, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Central Bureau of Investigation Through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, AC- II New Delhi, Camp At Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant/CBI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.11.2025 1. This is the Second bail application 7led 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. RC2172025A0010 registered at Police Station – CBI/AC-II/New Delhi, for the o<ence punishable under Sections 7/8/9/10 & 12 of the PC Ac and Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 5456 of 2025 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.04 13:14:44 +0530 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that, on the basis of reliable information received by the respondent, it was revealed that M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., a company engaged in the business of construction, had committed certain o<ences in connivance with other co-accused persons. The prosecution states that between 01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025, SECR had awarded 44 work contracts to M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. The further case of the prosecution is that co-accused Vishal Anand was actively involved in the tender bearing No. Engg-CTE-BSP-08-2024-25. After completion of the tender process, a work order was issued in favour of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. for the execution of safety fencing with gate and pedestrian subway from Km 618.000 to Km 722.000 of the BSP– JSG section of Bilaspur Division. However, the work awarded to the company could not be executed due to the lack of cable clearance from the S&T Department. In order to facilitate or expedite the requisite clearance, co-accused Sushil Jhajharia, who was the Managing Director of the company, allegedly approached co-accused Vishal Anand, Chief Engineer/RSW, SECR, to seek his inFuence and intervention in obtaining the necessary clearance from the S&T Department. The prosecution further states that subsequently, a meeting took place between co- accused Vishal Anand and Sushil Jhajharia, wherein it was mutually agreed that a bribe amount would be paid to Vishal Anand in exchange for facilitating the pending clearance of the fencing work. Pursuant to this meeting, the present Applicant, who is a low-salaried employee of the company, was instructed to transfer the agreed amount from Bilaspur to Ranchi. The respondent laid a trap, and on 25.04.2025, the Applicant was arrested while delivering the agreed amount to co-accused Kunal Anand. The present applicant has been made an accused solely on the ground that he acted as a courier to transfer the agreed amount from one 3 place to another. On the basis of the said allegation, o<ences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were registered against the present Applicant and other co-accused persons vide FIR No. RC2172025A0010 dated 25.04.2025. 4. Mr. Otwani, learned Senior Advocate, argued that this is the second bail application 7led on behalf of the present applicant, and it is being preferred on the ground that the co-accused, namely Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4638 of 2025 vide order dated 28.10.2025. It is submitted that the said co-accused was granted bail on the ground that he had been incarcerated since 25.04.2025, and the present applicant has also been languishing in jail since the same date. Therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and, hence, prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation has opposed the bail application of the applicant. 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, as the co-accused, namely Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4638 of 2025 vide order dated 28.10.2025, on the ground that he had been incarcerated since 25.04.2025, and the present applicant has also been languishing in jail since the same date, the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused. 4 Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been 7led before the competent Court in the present case, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Manoj Pathak, involved in Crime No. RC2172025A0010 registered at Police Station – CBI/AC-II/New Delhi, for the o<ence punishable under Sections 7/8/9/10 & 12 of the PC Ac and Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 7le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 7xed 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 7xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suIcient 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 7xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 7xed 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 suIcient 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. OIce is directed to send a certi7ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek