1 2026:CGHC:113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9309 of 2025 Hem Kumar Panigrahi S/o Late Shri Bhumanya Prasad Panigrahi Aged About 45 Years Assistant Grade-Iii/ Reader, Tahsil O+ce, Darbha, Distt- Bastar C.G., R/o Village- Titargaon, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. EOW/ACB Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2026 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. 59/2025, registered at Police Station – EOW/ACB, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) for the o@ence punishable under Section 07 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Amended, 2018. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant, namely Samnath Baghel, appeared before the o+ce of the Deputy RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur, and submitted a written complaint stating that he is a resident of Gram Panchayat Chhindwara. His wife, Samwati Baghel, died due to a snake bite on 27.05.2025, in respect of which a report was lodged at Police Station Darbha, and thereafter a letter was forwarded from the said police station to the Tehsil O+ce, Darbha for grant of compensation. Subsequently, the complainant contacted Hem Kumar Panigrahi, a Clerk Grade-III posted at Tehsil Darbha, who assured him that the work would be done and demanded an illegal gratiCcation of ₹50,000/- after completion of the work. On 13.10.2025, an amount of ₹4,00,000/- was deposited into the complainant’s Bank of Baroda account, and thereafter the accused demanded ₹50,000/- for processing the compensation case. As the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint before the ACB, Jagdalpur. On the direction of the ACB, a voice recorder was provided to the complainant, and the conversation regarding the demand of ₹25,000/- was recorded and veriCed, upon which a prima facie case was registered as Unnumbered Crime No. 0/2025 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the accused Hem Kumar Panigrahi. Thereafter, on 29.10.2025, after appointment of an independent gazetted o+cer by the Collector, Bastar, the accused was caught red-handed by the trap party at the Tehsil O+ce, Darbha, while accepting a bribe amount of ₹25,000/-. Subsequently, the accused was arrested on 30.10.2025 at 15:20 hours, and FIR No. 59/2025 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as 3 amended) was registered, and the investigation is presently underway. Hence, the present bail application has been Cled. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged o@ence. He was not the competent or authorised authority to sanction or release the compensation amount to the complainant, and therefore no motive or occasion arises for demanding any bribe. It is further submitted that due to previous enmity, the complainant has falsely implicated the applicant. As per the prosecution case itself, no bribe amount was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged money was found from the complainant’s bag, which clearly demolishes the prosecution story. The essential ingredient of demand, which is sine qua non for an o@ence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been established, as no independent witness has supported the alleged demand. The applicant, being a Clerk Grade-III and a government servant posted in Bastar district, has remained in custody since 30.10.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, he 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 accused, being a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratiCcation of ₹25,000/- for processing compensation, and was caught red-handed in a trap by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. A prima facie case under Section 7 of 4 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended) is clearly made out, the investigation is still in progress, and considering the seriousness of the o@ence and the manner of commission, 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 the applicant, being a Clerk Grade-III, was not the competent or authorised authority to sanction or release the compensation amount to the complainant. As per the prosecution case itself, no bribe amount was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged money was found from the complainant, and the essential ingredient of demand has not been prima facie established by any independent witness. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the applicant is in jail since 30.10.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Hem Kumar Panigrahi, involved in Crime No. 59/2025, registered at Police Station – EOW/ACB, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) for the o@ence punishable under Section 07 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 5 satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall Cle an undertaking to the e@ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Cxed 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 Cxed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su+cient 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 Cxed 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 Cxed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. 6 If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su+cient 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. O+ce is directed to provide a certiCed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan