1 2025:CGHC:60414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1882 of 2025 Lalai Ram Maravi S/o Madho Ram Maravi Aged About 36 Years Post- Jail Prahari- Central Jail- Ambikapur, (Terminated), R/o House No. 73, Ward No. 09, Koyam Para, Muhuli, Post- Sulsuli, Sub-District- Wadragnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Manipur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 11.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 311/2025, registered at Police Station – Manipur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. As per the F.I.R. lodged at Police Station Manipur, District Sarguja, the complainant, Smt. Amrikabai, has alleged that the jail ofÏcials, including the present applicant and other co-accused persons, had received illegal ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.12 16:56:01 +0530 2 money from inmates through online transactions. It is further submitted that, based on these allegations, the Department directed Police Station Manipur to lodge an F.I.R. against the applicant, pursuant to which Crime No. 311/2025 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant was appointed as a Jail Prahari vide order dated 24.02.2015, and thereafter continued working as a Jail Prahari at Central Jail, Ambikapur vide order dated 17.11.2022. The applicant is a regular government employee, but due to the false allegations made by the complainant, Smt. Amrikabai, he was terminated from service vide order dated 18.10.2025, without issuance of any show-cause notice or conduct of departmental inquiry. He submits that the applicant is a terminated employee aged about 31 years. As per the complaint, the alleged period of offence from 13.04.2024 to 18.10.2025 does not pertain to the tenure when the applicant was posted at Central Jail, Ambikapur. Hence, the allegations are factually incorrect. He also submits that the allegation that the applicant received money (based on a single transaction) is false, as no such amount was received either from the complainant’s account or from the account of her husband/the prisoner. Therefore, the conclusion that the applicant received money from the complainant is baseless and concocted. He further submits that the complainant has not produced any document to substantiate or verify any monetary transaction with the applicant, therefore, the accusations made against the applicant are false and unsupported by evidence. The complainant’s husband, namely Mukesh Kant, was an inmate lodged at Central Jail, Ambikapur. He absconded from the prison and later surrendered before the Collector, 3 Bilaspur, stating that he wanted to remain near his residence at Bilaspur. Hence, to escape liability for his prison escape, he made false allegations against 13–14 senior jail ofÏcials, including the present applicant. He submits that the applicant has small children and family responsibilities, and being the sole breadwinner, his entire family is dependent upon him. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that, as per the case diary, it is prima facie revealed that the applicant/accused Lalai Ram Maravi, along with other co-accused persons, who were posted as Jail Guards at the Central Jail, Ambikapur, had on several occasions demanded illegal money from the convicted prisoner Mukesh Kant lodged in the said jail and had received Rs. 5,000/- in his bank account. Due to such illegal demands, the prisoner absconded from the jail and surrendered the next day. Thereafter, the prisoner’s wife, Smt. Amrikabai, submitted a written complaint against the jail guards. During the departmental inquiry conducted on her complaint, the bank statements and documents furnished by her confirmed that illegal amounts had been deposited into the bank accounts of the applicant/accused and the co-accused persons. On this basis, the department dismissed the applicant/accused and the co-accused jail guards from service. Therefore, looking to the illegal act of the present applicant, he is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record and from perusal of the case diary it appears that the applicant/accused Lalai Ram Maravi and other co-accused jail guards at the Central Jail, Ambikapur, repeatedly demanded illegal money from convicted prisoner 4 Mukesh Kant and received Rs. 5,000/- in the applicant’s account. Owing to these demands, the prisoner absconded but surrendered the next day. His wife, Smt. Amrikabai, later filed a complaint, and the departmental inquiry, supported by bank statements and documents provided by her, confirmed deposits of illegal amounts into the accounts of the applicant and the co-accused. Consequently, they were dismissed from service, therefore, looking to the illegal act of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Lalai Ram Maravi, involved in Crime No. 311/2025, registered at Police Station – Manipur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek