1 2026:CGHC:24448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5221 of 2026 Sourabh Goswami S/o Ramu Prasad Goswami Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Suspended Patwari, R/o Village Badasara, Mopka Police Station And Tahsil- Bhaiya Than, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- A.C.B. Unit, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/06/2026 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. 21/2026 registered at Police Station EOW/A.C.B. Chhattisgarh, Raipur through A.C.B Unit Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was posted as Patwari in Patwari Halka No. 13, Sedhon Para, Tahsil KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Pratappur, District Surajpur. It is alleged that during the relevant period, the applicant was transferred from Village Durti (Sedhon Para) to Gopalpur, Surajpur, and was in the process of updating official records and handing over charge to the newly posted Halka Patwari before assuming charge at his new place of posting. According to the prosecution, the complainant, Roop Singh, had approached the applicant for mutation of ancestral land acquired for coal mining in the S.E.C.L., Bhatgaon Area, and for issuance of a certificate identifying him as an affected landholder for the purpose of securing employment in S.E.C.L. for his family members. It is alleged that the applicant demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as illegal gratification for carrying out the mutation and for preparing and signing the requisite Patwari reports and certificates. The prosecution further alleges that the complainant submitted a written complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, pursuant to which a trap proceeding was organized on 22.04.2026. During the trap proceedings, an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, alleged to be the tainted bribe money, was recovered from a pocket located behind the driver's seat of a Hyundai Creta vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-29-AE-550. Thereafter, upon completion of the requisite legal formalities, a First Information Report came to be registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no land-related work of the complainant was pending with the applicant and that the prosecution case is the 3 result of a well-planned conspiracy arising out of local factionalism. It is further submitted that the applicant had already been transferred from Patwari Halka Durti (Sedhon Para), Tahsil Pratappur to Patwari Halka Gopalpur, Tahsil Surajpur vide order dated 17.04.2026 and was only engaged in updating records and handing over charge to the newly posted Patwari. The work sought by the complainant was not within the applicant's jurisdiction, and the applicant had merely advised the complainant to approach the competent authority, namely the Tahsildar, for mutation proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged tainted amount was not recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant but from a vehicle when the applicant was not present therein. It is also argued that the complainant himself placed the amount inside the vehicle in a planned manner. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 22.04.2026 and now he has been suspended from services further, 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. She further submits that applicant is indirectly involved in a case of taking bribe from the complainant, which was a trap laid down by the ACB and Rs. 25,000/- has been recovered from the vehicle of the applicant therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions and records, it is clear that the applicant has been in custody since 22.04.2026, has no previous criminal history and has already been suspended from service. The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and further custodial interrogation is not required. In view of these facts, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Sourabh Goswami, involved in Crime No. 21/2026 registered at Police Station EOW/A.C.B. Chhattisgarh, Raipur through A.C.B Unit Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 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 through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 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. 9. Office 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