1 CGHC010275252026 2026:CGHC:30686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6481 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri Santosh Shukla, Aged About 50 Years Occupation-Service, Chhattisgarh State Power Board, Manendragarh, R/o - T. V. Tower Road, Manendragarh, District - M. C. B. (Manendragarh - Chirimiri - Bharatpur) (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, C. G. (Police Station - E. O. W./ A. C. B., Raipur, C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shalin Singh Baghel, Dy. G. A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.07.2026 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. 25/2026 registered at Police Station E.O.W. / A.C.B., Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as Amended 2018). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ramesh Singh, submitted a written complaint before the Deputy RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Ambikapur, alleging that he had applied for a temporary electricity connection for irrigation purposes at his agricultural field through the Electricity Department, Manendragarh. It was alleged that after a survey of the site had been conducted, the present applicant, Rakesh Kumar Shukla, who was working as a Lineman in the Electricity Office, demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for providing the temporary connection and directed the complainant to meet co-accused Manish Bajaj, Junior Engineer, for payment of the amount. For verification of the complaint, the complainant was provided with a digital voice recorder, pursuant to which a conversation was recorded wherein co-accused Manish Bajaj allegedly demanded Rs.9,500/- as illegal gratification for sanctioning the connection. Thereafter, a trap was organized by the A.C.B. team. During the trap proceedings, the complainant entered the office carrying the tainted amount of Rs.9,500/-, and on the instructions of co-accused Manish Bajaj, allegedly handed over the said amount to the present applicant, who accepted the same and kept it in the drawer of a table situated in the chamber of the co-accused. Immediately thereafter, both the accused persons were apprehended by the trap team and the tainted amount was recovered. After completing the requisite legal formalities and investigation, finding sufficient material against the applicant and the co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), Crime No. 25/2026 was registered by E.O.W./A.C.B., Raipur, and upon completion of investigation, 3 charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 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 contended that the prosecution case is primarily based on the complaint, the alleged recorded conversation, and the trap proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the veracity, legality, and evidentiary value whereof are matters to be tested during trial. He further submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged demand of illegal gratification was made by co- accused Manish Bajaj, Junior Engineer, and no specific demand has been attributed to the present applicant. It is argued that the applicant has been implicated merely on the allegation that he was present in the office and allegedly received the tainted amount at the instance of the co-accused, whereas the demand, acceptance, and recovery are all matters requiring strict proof during the course of trial. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been suspended from service and is no longer posted at his original place of work, therefore, there is no likelihood of his influencing witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents under the Gambling Act of the years 2017 and 2018, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 25.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/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 has been apprehended in a duly conducted trap operation by the Anti- Corruption Bureau and the tainted amount was recovered during the course of the trap proceedings. It is contended that the material collected during investigation, including the complaint, recorded conversation, trap proceedings, and statements of witnesses, prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. He further submits that the allegations pertain to corruption by a public servant, which is a serious offence affecting public confidence in governmental institutions. It is argued that sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents under the Gambling Act of the years 2017 and 2018. Therefore, considering the nature, criminal antecedent of the applicant and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant stands suspended from service and, therefore, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence appears remote, and further considering that the demand of illegal gratification is alleged to 5 have been made primarily by the co-accused and the role attributed to the present applicant is a matter to be adjudicated during trial, and further considering the fact that the applicant has two criminal antecedents under the Gambling Act of the years 2017 and 2018 which are old and stale, he is in jail since 25.05.2026, and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant- Rakesh Kumar Shukla, involved in Crime No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station E.O.W. / A.C.B., Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as Amended 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 6 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 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