1 2026:CGHC:670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10518 of 2025 Raju Kumar S/o Patiraj Aged About 40 Years (Old Age Not Mentioned In Cause Title Of A/1) R/o Ward No. 14 Village Tengni Patelpara Girjapur Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through OfÏcer In Charge, Anti Corruption Bureau, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 58/2025, registered at Police Station – Anti Corruption Bureau, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 07 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Amended, 2018. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint was lodged alleging that the main accused, ASI P. Toppo, was demanding RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 illegal gratification for investigating a crime. Upon receipt of the complaint, the ACB provided a voice recorder to the complainant, and the demand of bribe amounting to Rs.12,000/- by ASI P. Toppo was recorded. Thereafter, the ACB constituted a trap team, pursuant to which the complainant went to meet ASI P. Toppo to hand over the bribe amount. At that time, ASI P. Toppo directed the complainant to hand over the bribe amount to the present applicant. Accordingly, the tainted amount was handed over to the present applicant, who was caught red-handed by the ACB team. Consequently, Crime No. 58/2025 was registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). Hence, the present bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the applicant is the sole bread earner of his family, working as a para-legal volunteer, and is the only person to look after his wife and two minor children. She also submits that on the date of the incident, the applicant was discharging his ofÏcial duties and, on the directions of his superior ofÏcer, namely the co-accused ASI Policarp Toppo, he received the amount from the complainant without having any knowledge of the alleged illegal transaction between the co-accused and the complainant. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet itself reveals that the co-accused has admitted that he had directed the present applicant to receive the amount and hand it over to him. The applicant neither demanded nor accepted any 3 bribe for himself, and had no independent role in the alleged offence, having merely acted in obedience to the instructions of his superior. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in jail since 17.10.2025. Therefore, she prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant was caught red- handed while accepting the tainted bribe amount on the directions of the main accused, ASI P. Toppo, which clearly establishes his active role in the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It is submitted that the demand has been duly recorded, the trap proceedings were successful, and the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the applicant is supported by prima facie evidence. Considering the seriousness of the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the manner in which the offence was committed, and the impact on public confidence in the administration, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, it appears that though a sum of Rs.12,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, but it is prima facie apparent that the 4 said amount was received by the applicant on behalf of the co- accused, ASI Policarp Toppo, pursuant to his directions, and there is no material on record to show any independent demand or acceptance of bribe by the applicant. Further considering that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and he is in jail since 17.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant - Raju Kumar, involved in Crime No. 58/2025, registered at Police Station – Anti Corruption Bureau, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 07 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Amended, 2018, 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 5 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 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. 9. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan