1 2025:CGHC:61354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9153 of 2025 Surendra Kumar Sonkar S/o Ganesh Ram Sonkar Aged About 38 Years R/o - Village - Newarikala, Tahsil And District - Balod, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - A.C.B. Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.12.2025 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. 56/2025 registered at Police Station A.C.B. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Mukesh Kumar Yadav was posted as a driver in the Health Department and was later demoted to the post of chowkidar. Due to the said demotion, he preferred a writ petition, and upon issuance of notice to the State for filing a reply in the said case, the applicant along with other co-accused allegedly ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.17 11:16:58 +0530 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him. On the basis of the said demand, the complainant allegedly paid Rs. 20,000/- to them. Thereafter, he decided to trap the applicants with the help of the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) and accordingly made a complaint to the ACB. The ACB received the complaint on 07.10.2025 and provided the complainant with a voice recorder and a memory card. However, the complainant approached the applicant on 14.10.2025, handed over the money, and placed the same in his drawer. Subsequently, the trap party reached the spot and arrested the applicant. Accordingly, FIR No. 56/2025 was registered against two accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station ACB, Raipur. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime, which was never committed by him, therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Further, there is no case of demand made by the applicant, and his hands were not coloured when the sodium carbonate test was conducted by the ACB. He submits that the money whatsoever recovered from the drawer of the desk was meant for Manish Chandrakar, who had demanded the said amount as a loan from the complainant. Since Manish was not present at that time, the complainant requested the applicant to keep the money and handed it over to him for Manish. An afÏdavit to this effect has also been filed by Manish Chandrakar before the learned Court below. The applicant has not played any active or passive role in the present crime and has never been involved in any such criminal activity earlier. Further, the applicant is a handicapped person with 60% disability. He also submits that on the face of the FIR itself, the complainant alleges that he had paid Rs. 20,000/- prior to the present incident, however, no 3 proof whatsoever has been produced by the complainant in support of the said allegation. Further, the applicant had no role in making any reply, nor was he appointed or authorized as O.S.D. to file any reply. Hence, the complainant has concocted a false story. The applicant was not authorized to perform any legal work, including maintaining service books, and despite the same, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant has made a complaint seeking the call details and chats between Manish Chandrakar and the complainant dated 17.10.2025, to ascertain that Manish had requested a loan from the complainant and that the complainant has falsely implicated the applicant in a concocted case. It is further submitted that the present case is based on documentary evidence, and as such, there is no imminent necessity for custodial interrogation of the applicant. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 17.10.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He submits that the complainant, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, was initially posted as a driver in the Health Department and was later demoted to the post of chowkidar, pursuant to which he filed a writ petition. After notice was issued to the State in the said matter, the applicant and other co-accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- was allegedly paid. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). Acting upon the complaint received on 07.10.2025, the ACB laid a trap and arrested the applicant on 14.10.2025 while allegedly accepting the bribe amount. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of 4 regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact that the applicant has already been suspended from his duties due to his conduct, moreover, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 17.10.2025, 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. 7. Let the Applicant – Surendra Kumar Sonkar, involved in Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station A.C.B. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 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. 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 Abhishek