1 CGHC010306802026 2026:CGHC:35654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7435 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Rangari S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Rangari Aged About 46 Years Occupation Babu / Clerk, Tehsil Office Farasgaon, Resident Of House No. 413, Gautam Nagar, Gram Lanjoda, Tehsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. E O W / Anti-Corruption Bureau Raipur, Unit Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sumit Singh, Deputy AG. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12/08/2026 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.35/2026 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB Raipur, Unit ACB Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for the offence under KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.13 11:40:58 +0530 2 Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of written complaint filed by one Shri Bisulal Netam alleging that the applicant (Clerk at Tehsil Office Farasgaon) demanded a bribe for adding names to land revenue accounts (Khasra Nos. 6/68, 18, 26/1, 37, 38/1), a trap was laid by the ACB, wherein the alleged tainted money of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the open boot (dikki) of the applicant's vehicle. Thereafter the FIR was registered against the applicant. 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. The applicant never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant nor accepted the alleged bribe amount. The revenue order for the mutation/addition of names in Khasra Nos. 6/68, 18, 26/1, 37, 38/1 had already been passed by the Tehsildar on 29.04.2026 itself. Since the official work had already been concluded two months prior, there was no occasion, motive, or reason for the applicant to demand any alleged bribe. The alleged recovery of Rs.10,000/- was made from the open boot (dikki) of the applicant's vehicle and not from his physical possession or person. The vehicle was parked in an open public area, accessible to anyone, making the alleged recovery entirely makes the case of the prosecution doubtful and planted. The applicant is a permanent government servant posted at Tehsil Office Farasgaon and has a fixed place of abode along with immovable 3 properties in District Kondagaon. The substantial portion of the investigation has already been completed, material seizures (currency notes and recordings) have been made, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required by the prosecution. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.06.2026. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. 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 does not have any criminal antecedents, he has been placed under suspension 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 does not have any criminal antecedents, he has been placed under suspension, the applicant is in jail since 30.6.2026 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 – Mukesh Kumar Rangari, involved in Crime No.35/2026 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB Raipur, Unit 4 ACB Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for the offence under Section 7 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 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 5 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. 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