1 CGHC010300772026 2026:CGHC:37190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7097 of 2026 Bhagirath Verma S/o Lt. Shri Ramchandra Verma Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. E-5, Sector 02, Agroha Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing (E.O.W)/ Anti- Curruption Bureau (A.C.B), Headquarter, Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Pravin Das, Additional AG. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19/08/2026 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.28/2026 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), District Raipur (C.G.) for KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.20 18:32:44 +0530 2 the offence under Section 7 & 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the Prosecution emerges from a purported complaint lodged by one named Mr. Raghvendra Tiwari of C.G. Solutions, wherein it is alleged that the Applicant, while serving as Chief Engineer, Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, abused his official position during the period 2019 to 2023 by demanding illegal gratification in connection with the award of municipal contracts. According to the complainant, the Applicant repeatedly insisted for a payment of 25% commission against every contract awarded, purportedly for getting work orders and by pointing out the alleged deficiencies in the tender documents. It is alleged that, owing to the Applicant's official position and influence, the complainant was compelled to make payments through various modes and also provide valuable articles aggregating to approximately 2,02,52,000/-. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the Investigating Agency on 17.06.2026 conducted search and seizure proceedings at the residential premises of the Applicant situated at Raipur. Notably, the search was also conducted upon his daughter's rented premises at Bilaspur. Subsequent thereto, the Applicant who was at his Raipur residence was directed to accompany the officials of the Investigating Agency to its Head Quarters. Despite having effectively taken the Applicant into custody, the Investigating Agency failed to formally record his arrest in accordance with law 3 and retained him at its Head Quarters for several hours, including through the intervening night. It is only thereafter that the Investigating Agency purported to show the arrest of the Applicant at 21:05 hours on 17.06.2026. Significantly, the intimation of arrest was served upon the Applicant's daughter only at around 02:15 PM on the following day, there by exposing a serious discrepancy in the chronology of events and raising substantial doubts regarding the legality and fairness of the manner in which the arrest was effected. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no cogent, credible or legally admissible material to establish that the Applicant ever demanded or accepted any illegal gratification or obtained any undue advantage, so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case rests solely on the uncorroborated allegations of the complainant, which are matters of trial. In the absence of any prima facie material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, the Applicant's continued incarceration is wholly unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There was neither any need nor necessity to arrest the present Applicant in the Subject FIR. It is settled law that the police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so and the arrest cannot be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of 4 an offence against a person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of judgments has held that a person is not liable to be arrested merely on the suspicion of the complicity in an offence and there must be reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., {(1994) 4 SCC 260}. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Zubair vs. State (NCT of Delhi), {(2023) 16 SCC 764} held that power to arrest is not unbridled and the police officer must be satisfied that the arrest is necessary. Furthermore, in Siddharth vs. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial interrogation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or there is possibility of influencing witnesses or the accused may abscond. In the present case, apart from a bald allegation that the Applicant may influence witnesses and tamper with evidence, none of the aforesaid conditions are met so as to justify arrest of the Applicant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal vs CBI, {2025 SCC 248, para 74,76,85,87} by referring to Joginder Kumar (Supra), has held that there is distinction between the power to arrest and the necessity and need to arrest. The Grounds of Arrest are nothing more than a reproduction of the allegations made by the complainant and is bereft of an independent scrutiny by the Non-Applicant. The 5 Investigating Officer has neither articulated any independent reasons demonstrating satisfaction regarding the Applicant's culpability nor identified any material, apart from the complainant's allegations, justifying the drastic measure of arrest. It is further submitted that no recovery of any incriminating material whatsoever has been effected from or at the instance of the Applicant thereby revealing the absence of any evidentiary basis for arrest. The applicant has one criminal antecedent under the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the applicant has entered his appearance and furnished bail bonds. The applicant is in jail since 17.6.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the applicant has entered his appearance and furnished bail bonds, and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, the applicant has one criminal antecedent 6 under the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the applicant has entered his appearance and furnished bail bonds, which is mentioned in the bail application, the applicant is in jail since 17.6.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Bhagirath Verma, involved in Crime No.28/2026 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 7 & 11 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya 7 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 8 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve