1 2025:CGHC:50726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6762 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Tembhurney S/o Late B.S. Tembhurney Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 192, Behind Toy Factory, Fafadih, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Eow/ Acb, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Gy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as has has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station EOW/ ACB, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.13 11:19:20 +0530 2 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant namely Ramesh Kumar Yadav, a registered PWD contractor, had executed certain electrification works under various tenders. While part payment was made in March 2025, the remaining bill amount was pending. It is alleged that the present applicant, Ajay Kumar Temburney, Executive Engineer, PWD (E/M Division). Jagdalpur, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as illegal gratification for processing the pending bills. The Complainant lodged a written report before the Anti-Corruption Buerau, Jagdalpur on 19.05.2025. In the course of verification, the applicant allegedly reiterated the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- at his government residence, which conversation was recorded by the complainant. On 19.06.2025, the complainant again approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau with the recorded conversation and the proposed bribe amount. Upon Verification FIR No. 0/2025 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and the applicant was arrested on 20.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a public servant of unblemished service record and has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of a discontented complainant who was pressurizing the department for release of his pending bills in violation of government instructions. It is contended that, as per the circular dated 07.03.2025 issued by 3 the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, all Executive Engineers were directed to release only 25% of the bill amount for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2024–2025 and to withhold the remaining 75% until verification of the executed works. The complainant’s bills were covered under the said circular, and thus the applicant had no authority to release the withheld amount. It is, therefore, submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution’s case that illegal gratification was demanded as a quid pro quo for release of the bills is legally and factually untenable. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case suffers from grave procedural infirmities and does not fulfill the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification have neither been proved through credible evidence nor supported by any independent corroboration. It is argued that mere recovery of tainted currency notes, in absence of proof of voluntary demand and conscious acceptance, cannot sustain prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, and P. Satyanarayana Murty v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152, wherein it has been categorically held that demand and acceptance are sine qua non for establishing guilt under Section 7. In the present case, there is neither any independent proof of demand nor any admissible evidence of acceptance, even the 4 alleged recovery has been made from the drawer of the office table and not from the person of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also contends that the alleged voice recordings have not been authenticated as per law and their admissibility under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been established. The voice recorder remained in the possession of the complainant for over a month, thereby compromising its evidentiary value and chain of custody. Furthermore, the so-called independent witnesses are official subordinates of the trap team, which raises serious doubt on the fairness of the entire proceedings. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 20.06.2025. the investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, no further custodial interrogation is required. Considering that the applicant has cooperated fully with the investigation and has been suspended from service, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Therefore, continued detention of the applicant is wholly unwarranted and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposing the application, submits that the applicant/accused, being a public servant holding the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, was caught red-handed while accepting a 5 bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant in his official residence during the trap proceedings conducted by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur. It is contended that the tainted currency notes were duly recovered from the possession of the accused, and the chemical test confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder on his hands. The prosecution, after a detailed investigation, has filed the charge-sheet under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). It is urged that the allegations against the applicant are of a grave and serious nature, involving corruption in public office, which directly undermines public trust in government functioning. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the strong prima facie evidence on record, the learned State counsel submits that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State counsel, and upon perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet, and other material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that further detention of the applicant is not warranted. It is undisputed that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant, a public servant, has remained in custody since 20.06.2025 and is presently under suspension. Thus, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses appears to be minimal. 8. The circular dated 07.03.2025 issued by the Chief Engineer, 6 PWD, restricting the release of 75% of the pending bills till verification of works, prima facie indicates that the applicant had no authority to release the payment as alleged by the complainant. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the alleged voice recording and recovery of tainted money, the authenticity and admissibility of which are matters of trial. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court B. Jayaraj (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murty (supra), mere recovery of tainted currency, without proof of voluntary demand and conscious acceptance, cannot establish the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the completion of investigation, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present application. 9. Accordingly, applicant- Ajay Kumar Tembhurney involved in Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station EOW / ACB, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the 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 they 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. 7 (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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 applicants are 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. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek