1 CGHC010308952026 2026:CGHC:36632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7324 of 2026 Lakeshwar Sahu S/o Late Chaitram Aged About 42 Years R/o Karmanagar, Gali No. 1, Dhamtari, Police Station City Kotwali, Progress - Man O1ce Sub Divisional O1cer, Water Resources Department, Electro Mechanics, Division No. 2, Gangrel, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O1cer, Police Station E O W / Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This is the =rst bail application =led 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. 29/2026 registered at Police Station- EOW/ Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the o@ence punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended Act 2018. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant's father was posted as a Helper in the Electrical Engineering Sub-Division, Sondhur, who had died on 23.05.2026, after which the gratuity amount of ₹6,99,692/- was received in the account of the complainant's mother. Thereafter, the present applicant, who was working as Progress-man (Babu) at the Electrical Engineering O1ce, Gangrel, allegedly started demanding ₹1,10,000/- as bribe from the complainant. The present applicant allegedly made calls to the complainant demanding bribe, stating that the gratuity money had been received in the account and therefore he should be given ₹1,10,000/-. Upon this, the complainant made a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau on 10.06.2026. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police directed the concerned o1cer to take action on the aforesaid complaint. In furtherance of the complaint, a new 32 GB memory card was =tted in a voice recorder and the method of its operation was explained to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was given the recorder and was asked to record the conversation demanding bribe. On 14.06.2026, the complainant went to the residence of the present applicant and recorded the conversation regarding the alleged demand of bribe. Due to the ill-health of the complainant, the information was received at the Anti Corruption Bureau O1ce, Raipur on 16.06.2026. The aforesaid recorder was produced and heard by the o1cer, wherein the person talking to the complainant was found to be demanding bribe. The aforesaid information was conveyed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, 3 Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur and subsequently, a letter was issued on 16.06.2026, pursuant to which two panch witnesses and a trap team were constituted. The complainant was thereafter asked to appear at the Anti Corruption Bureau O1ce, Raipur on 17.06.2026 at 07:30 A.M. Acting upon the same, the complainant appeared and the amount was provided to him for the purpose of bribe. A second complaint and an unnumbered Dehati Nalshi were registered and the matter was taken up for investigation. On the basis of the aforesaid information and proceedings, an FIR was registered for the o@ence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, bearing Crime No. 29/2026 on 18.06.2026. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been =led before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned crime. He further submits that there is sheer non- compliance of the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that the charge-sheet was presented without prior permission of the senior o1cer. It is further submitted that, in the =nal report itself, it has been stated that the prosecution sanction order against the present applicant is pending. Learned counsel further submits that no money was recovered from the body or physical possession of the applicant and he has been implicated on the basis of false information without complying with the necessary provisions prescribed under law. She further submits that the alleged conversation recorded during veri=cation, wherein 4 at one instance it has been stated to give “one ten”, does not reJect any clear indication of demand of bribe from the complainant, nor is there any evidence showing that the voice recorded in the tape recorder belongs to the applicant. She further submits that the charge-sheet has already been =led and the investigation has been completed and therefore, there is no requirement of further judicial custody of the applicant. It is further submitted that the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the alleged o@ence is seven years and the trial has not yet commenced and there are altogether 15 witnesses, which shows that the trial would take considerable time. She further submits that the alleged amount has been recovered from the sofa in the drawing room of the applicant and there is no evidence that any demand was made by the applicant from the complainant. The applicant is in incarceration since 17.06.2026 and there is every possibility that the trial would take considerable time. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been =led before the competent Court. He further submits that applicant is involved in a case of taking bribe from the complainant, which was a trap laid down by the ACB, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions and records, it is clear that the applicant has been in custody since 17.06.2026, has no previous 5 criminal history and has already been suspended from service. The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been =led before the competent Court and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or inJuencing witnesses and further custodial interrogation is not required. In view of these facts, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Lakeshwar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station-EOW/ Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the o@ence punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended Act 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 =le an undertaking to the e@ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates =xed 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 =xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su1cient 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 =xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall 6 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 =xed 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 su1cient 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. 9. O1ce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal