1 2026:CGHC:1685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 291 of 2026 Polycorp Toppo S/o Late Tarsiyus Toppo Aged About 50 Years Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Outpost Patna, Pandopara, District Koriya, C.G., R/o Village Kuminicheka, Tahsil Jashpur, District Jashpur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Unit Ambikapur, C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 58/2025 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District-Raipur, Unit Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Amended Act, 2018. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, according to the record, on 24.04.2024, Ashiya Naz, daughter of the complainant Mohammad Shah Khan, was hit by a motorcycle driven by Ashwani Kumar @ Pintu. Initially, Ashwani Kumar agreed to bear the medical expenses of the injured girl and paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of her surgery at Dr. Paikara Hospital, Baikunthpur. Thereafter, he started avoiding further payment, as a result of which the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Patna. It is alleged that after the report was lodged, the present applicant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), demanded illegal gratification from the complainant, (stating that if he was paid Rs. 10,000/-, the complainant would not have to return the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Ashwani Kumar). The applicant further assured the complainant that he would settle the matter and ensure that the complainant received compensation through the Court. Pursuant to the said demand, the complainant Mohammad Shah Khan submitted a written complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ambikapur. The ACB provided the complainant with a digital voice recorder to record the demand of bribe. The recorded conversation allegedly revealed that the applicant demanded a total bribe of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which Rs. 3,000/- had already been taken as advance. Thereafter, a trap was laid on 17.10.2025, during which the complainant went to deliver the remaining bribe amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the applicant. As per the prosecution case, the applicant directed the complainant to hand over the amount to his associate, Raju Kumar. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the amount 3 of Rs. 12,000/- to Raju Kumar, who was caught red-handed on the spot by the ACB team and the said amount was recovered and seized from his possession. Consequently, a case was registered against the present applicant and his associate Raju Kumar by the ACB Unit, Ambikapur. Subsequently, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/ACB, Raipur registered Crime No. 58/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and is entitled to the presumption of innocence, which shall continue to operate in his favour till the conclusion of the trial. It is contended that the allegation of demand of bribe is false, as no ofÏcial work was pending before the applicant at the relevant time and, therefore, there was no occasion or motive for him to demand any illegal gratification. It is further submitted that in corruption cases, the substantial part of the investigation is ordinarily completed on the date of the trap/arrest itself, and subsequent investigation is largely procedural in nature, which does not require continued detention of the accused. He also submits that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a valid prosecution sanction against a public servant is mandatory and in the present case, although the charge-sheet has been filed, no sanction for prosecution has been obtained or placed on record, the process of obtaining such sanction is time-consuming and keeping the applicant incarcerated for an indefinite period would amount to pre-trial punishment. Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench judgments of the 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that “demand and acceptance” of illegal gratification are sine qua non for constituting an offence under the PC Act, whereas in the present case there is no direct evidence of demand by the applicant and the alleged recovery has been effected from a third party, namely Raju Kumar, for which the applicant cannot be held vicariously liable in the absence of proof of specific demand. In trap cases, the material evidence such as currency notes, phenolphthalein test reports, and voice recordings are seized at the spot itself, and therefore no custodial interrogation is required, nor is there any possibility of tampering with evidence which is already in the custody of the ACB. It is also submitted that since the applicant had already suspended from his ofÏcial duty by registering the report against the original accused, Ashwani Kumar, the theory of demand of bribe for “settlement” is wholly concocted and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that applicant is involved in a case of taking bribe from the complainant, which was a trap laid down by the ACB, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the period of detention of the applicant 5 since 17.10.2025, the fact that the alleged demand of illegal gratification pertains to an amount of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which the alleged recovery has been effected from a third party, namely Raju Kumar and not from the personal possession of the applicant and further considering that no ofÏcial work was pending before the applicant at the relevant time, this Court is of the considered view that the rigour of continued custodial detention is not warranted. It is also taken into account that the applicant has already been placed under suspension from service, has no criminal antecedent and the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is no requirement of further custodial interrogation, thus, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Polycorp Toppo, involved in Crime No. 58/2025 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District- Raipur, Unit Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Amended Act, 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 6 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. (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 send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal