1 2026:CGHC:26674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4564 of 2026 Pallav Nayak S/o- Shri Sunder Lal Nayak, Aged About 35 Years Post Forest Ranger, Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Surhi Range Lormi District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Shri Vihar Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Anti -Corruption Bureu/ Economic Offence Wing, Raipur, District- Raipur, Unit Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 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. 16/2026 registered at Police Station – A.C.B./E.O.W. Raipur, Unit Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case is based on a complaint lodged by one Shri Ajit Kumar Vaishnav, alleging that the co-accused, Manish Srivastava (Deputy Ranger), demanded a bribe for expediting a case pending ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.01 17:00:40 +0530 2 before the Forest Department and for securing the release of a seized vehicle. On 26.03.2026, a trap was laid, during which the co-accused, Manish Srivastava, was allegedly caught while accepting a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 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. He submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant neither demanded any bribe nor was any tainted money recovered from his possession. The essential ingredients of an offence under a trap case, namely demand, acceptance, and recovery, are completely absent insofar as the present applicant is concerned. Therefore, no offence is prima facie made out against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant, being a Forest Ranger, had no authority to release the seized vehicle, as such power vests with the Sub- Divisional Officer (SDO). Therefore, there was no occasion or reason for the applicant to demand any bribe for performing an act which was beyond his jurisdiction. He submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the mere presence of the applicant at the spot of the trap does not constitute an offence. The applicant was present only because his official vehicle had broken down, and he was taking a lift in the vehicle of the co-accused. The applicant had no knowledge of the alleged transaction or the events that took place. He submits that the applicant underwent major ear surgery about two years ago and suffers from hearing impairment in his left ear. He requires continuous medical care and regular follow-up treatment, which cannot be adequately provided while he remains in judicial custody. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 3 26.03.2026, 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. 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 26.03.2026, 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 – Pallav Nayak, involved in Crime No. 16/2026 registered at Police Station – A.C.B./E.O.W. Raipur, Unit Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 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 4 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. (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. 8. Office 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