1 CGHC010213242026 2026:CGHC:29181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5031 of 2026 Davendra Chandraker S/o Baldau Prasad Chandraker Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bemcha, Police Station Tehsil And District Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer A.C.B. Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 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. 19/2026 registered at Police Station ACB, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as Amended Act 2018. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the present applicant, who was serving as the Sarpanch of Village Bemcha, District RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Mahasamund, is alleged to have demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant in connection with facilitating the allotment/possession of Government land bearing Khasra No. 3110/3. It is alleged that the complainant, desirous of acquiring the said land, paid the aforesaid amount to the applicant pursuant to such demand. Acting upon the complaint, the competent authorities organized a trap proceeding, during which the applicant was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the tainted currency near Mahasamund Chowk. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the alleged offence. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was serving as the Sarpanch of Village Bemcha and has been unnecessarily roped into the alleged offence on account of local rivalry and ulterior motives. He contends that the complainant, who is employed as a Librarian in a Government College, was fully aware of the legal position that a Sarpanch has no authority or power to allot, transfer, regularize, or confer possession of Government land. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case, alleging payment of money to the applicant for securing Government land, is inherently improbable and creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the trap proceedings. It is further submitted that the land in question is Government land, as is evident from the revenue records annexed with the application, 3 and consequently no benefit, favour, or allotment could have been legally granted by the applicant in his capacity as Sarpanch. He further submits that the complainant resides in the vicinity of the land in question and, with an ulterior motive and with a view to settle personal scores, has lodged a false complaint against the applicant. It is also contended that the prosecution story is based on conjectures and assumptions and has been deliberately developed to implicate the applicant despite the absence of any lawful authority vested in him concerning the said land. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 17.04.2026 and has one previous criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, 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 non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant was holding a position of public trust as the Sarpanch of Village Bemcha and is alleged to have abused such position by demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the complainant in connection with Government land bearing Khasra No. 3110/3. It is contended that the applicant was apprehended in a duly conducted trap proceeding and was caught red-handed while accepting the tainted amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which lends substantial corroboration to the prosecution case. He further submits that the allegations are grave in nature and involve corruption by a public servant, which 4 strikes at the very root of public confidence in public institutions. The evidence collected during the investigation, including the trap proceedings, recovery of tainted currency, and statements of material witnesses, prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Considering the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the material available on record, though the allegation against the present applicant is that, while serving as the Sarpanch of Village Bemcha, District Mahasamund, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant in connection with Government land bearing Khasra No. 3110/3 and was allegedly caught red-handed during a trap proceeding conducted near Mahasamund Chowk, but further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and he is in jail since 17.04.2026, the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion. Taking into consideration the overall facts, and the period of detention and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant- Davendra Chandraker, involved in Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Police Station ACB, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as 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 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. (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 6 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 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