1 CGHC010292652026 2026:CGHC:32913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6892 of 2026 1 - Rajendra Singh Kshatriya S/o Late Ramakant Singh Aged About 63 Years Caste - Kshtriya , R/o House No. 300, Behind of I.T.I. Hostel, Chowdhary Mohalla, Namana Kala, Ambikapur, Post- Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of C.G. Through Police Station A.C.B. / E.O.W., Raipur, Unit, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 15/2020 registered at Police Station A.C.B./E.O.W., Raipur Unit, RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. As per the prosecution case, Police Station E.O.W./A.C.B., Raipur Unit, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh), received reliable source information alleging that the applicant/accused, Rajendra Singh Kshatriya, while working as Assistant Production Officer (Seed Manager), Chhattisgarh State Seeds and Agricultural Development Corporation Ltd., Processing Centre, Lohri, Manendragarh, had acquired and possessed movable and immovable assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the basis of the said information, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. Upon finding sufficient material during the preliminary enquiry, Inspector Navneet Patel registered a Zero FIR on 16.04.2020 at A.C.B. Unit, Ambikapur. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Police Station E.O.W./A.C.B., Raipur, where Crime No. 15/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). During the course of investigation, the details furnished by the applicant in the prescribed Forms 1, 2 and 3, along with the relevant documents and other material collected during investigation, were examined to assess his income and expenditure during the check period. The investigation allegedly revealed that the applicant had income from known and lawful sources amounting to ₹6,00,47,497.77 during the check period, whereas his total expenditure and assets were assessed at ₹11,28,67,045.50. According to the prosecution, the applicant possessed disproportionate assets to the extent of ₹5,28,19,547.73, constituting 87.96% in excess of his 3 known sources of income. After completion of the investigation, the applicant was arrested on 17.07.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the case is presently pending before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Korea, Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh). 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 prosecution has incorrectly assessed the value of the properties by taking their present market value and has also failed to consider the income and ancestral properties of the applicant's wife as well as the applicant's ancestral properties, thereby wrongly depicting disproportionate assets. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.07.2026, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant is a retired government servant aged about 63 years and has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that though charge-sheet has already been filed, considering the material collected during investigation, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail. 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, particularly the fact that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.07.2026, the investigation has been completed and the 4 charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is a retired government servant aged about 63 years, has no criminal antecedents and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rajendra Singh Kshatriya involved in Crime No. 15/2020 registered at Police Station A.C.B./E.O.W., Raipur Unit- Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) 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 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. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Ruchi