1 CGHC010285132026 2026:CGHC:34289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6903 of 2026 Manharan Lal Kaushik S/o Shri Ghuntul Prashad Aged About 59 Years R/o Narebodh, Gevra Basti, Post Office- Kusmunda, District- Korba, (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi), Acb, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri VA Goverdhan, Standing Counsel. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05/08/2026 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.RC1242026A0004, dated 8.5.2026, registered at Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB District Raipur C.G.) for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.06 17:06:04 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, working as Clerk Grade-I in the CMPF Section, SECL, Kusmunda, demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- (later agreed to Rs.4,000/-) from Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma to process the family pension claim of his widowed mother. It is alleged that upon discreet verification on 08.05.2026, the demand was confirmed via recorded conversation. A trap was laid on 10.05.2026, where the applicant was allegedly caught red- handed accepting ₹4,000/-, and phenolphthalein tests on his hands and pant pocket yielded positive results. Consequently, the FIR was registered, and upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 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. Investigation in the present matter is complete. The CBI has already filed the charge sheet before the Trial Court on 06.07.2026. Furthermore, the Prosecution Sanction Order under Section 19 of the PC Act has been obtained and submitted to the Court on 10.07.2026. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required, and his continued detention serves no legal purpose. The prosecution's case is inherently flawed regarding the applicant's capacity to extend any official favor. The applicant was merely a dealing clerk (Clerk Grade-I) and his role was purely ministerial, devoid of any statutory or administrative power to sanction or approve pension claims. The 3 records reveal that the Pension Payment Order (PPO No. BLP/MAN/26-27/39) in favor of the complainant's mother had already been sanctioned by the Regional Commissioner-II, CMPFO, Bilaspur on 06.04.2026, well before the alleged trap date. The PPO was dispatched to SECL Kusmunda via Speed Post on 12.05.2026 and received on 13.05.2026. The applicant, who was arrested on 10.05.2026, had no occasion to process or deal with the sanctioned PPO. Thus, the alleged motive for the bribe is baseless. The entire case of the prosecution is built upon documentary evidence (seized files, registers, service records), scientific evidence (CFSL reports for hand washes and pant pocket washes), and electronic records (Digital Voice Recorder memory cards). All these exhibits and materials have already been recovered, seized, sealed, and forwarded to the respective CFSL laboratories in New Delhi and Bhopal by the CBI. The applicant cannot tamper with this evidence. The trial Court erred in rejecting bail on the assumption. that the applicant might influence SECL employees. The applicant has already been placed under suspension. He is barred from accessing the office or official files. Furthermore, the material witnesses are independent gazetted officers (from SBI) and superior officers of CMPFO and SECL, whom a suspended clerk Grade-I possesses absolutely no capacity to intimidate or influence. As argued before the trial court, no documents were seized during the pre- trap proceedings to demonstrate that the applicant had 4 deliberately withheld or stalled the pension file to extort a bribe. The transcripts of the recorded conversations, as relied upon by the prosecution, are highly ambiguous and do not unequivocally establish a demand for an illegal gratification. The applicant is in jail since 10.5.2026. 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 does not have any criminal antecedent, 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 antecedent, he has already been placed under suspension, he is in jail since 10.5.2026 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 – Manharan Lal Kaushik, involved in Crime No.RC1242026A0004, dated 8.5.2026, registered at Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB District Raipur C.G.) for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 5 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 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 6 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