1 CGHC010291472026 2026:CGHC:36640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6894 of 2026 B. Rajshekhar Rao S/o Shri B. Nukayya Aged About 49 Years R/o Quarter No. 18, (B), New Police Line Road, Durg District Durg C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corrupation, Branch, ( C B I / A C B) District Raipur Chhattisgarh. -- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/UOI : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. MCRC No. 6939 of 2026 Ramalaxmi D/o Late J. Ramanna Aged About 40 Years R/o Velpula Vedhi Anakkapalle P.O. Anakkapalle District Anakkapalle A.P. At Present R/o Gudhiyari Raipur District Raipur C.G. ---Applicant(s) Versus The Union Of India Through C.B.I A.C.B. Raipur District Raipur C.G. ----Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. For Non-applicant/UOI : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 17/08/2026 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same crime number and same o?ence so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.RC1242026A0005, registered at Police Station CBI, ACB, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7 and 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Ms. Vanshika Jain, had applied for recruitment under the Sports Quota in South East Central Railway (SECR), Bilaspur, and participated in the Women's Powerlifting (84+ kg) trial held on 18.03.2026 at Railway Boxing Stadium, Bilaspur. During the said trial, accused B. Rajshekhar Rao, who was posted as Track Maintainer and was acting as an announcer-cum-scorer/coach of Powerlifting, allegedly approached the complainant and demanded an amount of ₹5,00,000/- for securing her Fnal selection and medical Ftness and also asked her to contact the applicant/accused J. Ramalakshmi, who was working as Commercial-cum-Ticket Clerk and had acted as Chief/Central Referee during the trial. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the J. Ramalakshmi and as alleged, the accused reiterated/demanded the said amount assuring that the complainant's medical Ftness and selection would be cleared. Being unwilling to pay the demanded amount, the complainant 3 lodged a complaint before the CBI/ACB, Raipur on 15.05.2026. During veriFcation of the complaint, the alleged demand was recorded through WhatsApp conversations/calls in the presence of an independent witness. Thereafter, a trap was laid by the CBI, pursuant to which the applicant J. Ramalakshmi was apprehended while allegedly accepting ₹40,000/- in genuine currency along with ₹4,60,000/- in dummy currency notes treated with Phenolphthalein powder. Her hand-wash allegedly gave positive results for the said chemical. It is further alleged that, after her apprehension, the applicant made a speakerphone call the applicant- B. Rajshekhar Rao and informed him regarding the money, pursuant to which the he allegedly asked her to bring the amount to Durg Railway Station. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the CBI registered the case against the applicants for the o?ences punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant J. Ramalakshmi was arrested on 16.05.2026 and was initially remanded to police custody and thereafter, the applicant- B. Rajshekhar Rao have been in judicial custody since 15.05.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicant B. Rajshekhar Rao never demanded or accepted any illegal gratiFcation from the complainant and no tainted amount was recovered from his possession or control. It is further submitted that the applicant B. Rajshekhar Rao is merely a Track Maintainer Grade-II and was deputed as an announcer-cum- 4 scorer during the sports trial and had no discretionary power or authority in the selection process. The prosecution case against applicant B. Rajshekhar Rao is primarily based upon the alleged disclosure/statement of accused/applicant and the WhatsApp call records, which, according to learned counsel, do not by themselves establish any demand or criminal conspiracy. So far as applicant J. Ramalakshmi is concerned, learned counsel submits that she is a Commercial-cum-Ticket Clerk and has no role or authority in the selection process and that no independent demand of illegal gratiFcation was made by her. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the complainant and trap witnesses. Both the applicants have no criminal antecedents and are permanent Railway employees having deep roots in society. The investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been Fled, while the CFSL report and sanction for prosecution are still awaited and charges have not yet been framed. It is also submitted that the entire prosecution case rests upon documentary and electronic evidence, which has already been seized by the investigating agency and therefore there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence or inHuencing the witnesses. Both the applicants are in judicial custody since 15.05.2026 and 16.05.2026 respectively and their further custodial detention is not required for the purpose of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that applicant J. Ramalakshmi has an established career in Powerlifting and has represented the country at national and international levels. It is, therefore, prayed that both 5 the applicants may kindly be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant/UOI, opposing the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the CBI registered the case on the basis of the complaint dated 15.05.2026 and upon veriFcation, the demand of illegal gratiFcation was duly conFrmed. It is submitted that during the trap proceedings, applicant Smt. J. Ramalakshmi, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with applicant B. Rajshekhar Rao, demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹5,00,000/- from the complainant, comprising ₹40,000/- in genuine currency and ₹4,60,000/- in dummy notes, which was recovered from her in the presence of independent witnesses. It is further submitted that the investigation has disclosed suJcient oral and documentary and electronic evidence establishing the involvement of both the applicants in the alleged conspiracy and demand of illegal gratiFcation. Applicant B. Rajshekhar Rao, who was deputed as announcer-cum-scorer during the sports trial, was also associated with the trial process, while applicant J. Ramalakshmi was acting as Chief/Central Referee and both allegedly represented to the complainant that they could facilitate her selection and medical Ftness in lieu of illegal gratiFcation. Though the charge-sheet has been Fled, the prosecution sanction and certain expert reports are awaited and are to be placed before the trial Court upon receipt. It is further submitted that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the involvement of both the applicants in the alleged conspiracy, the recovery of the bribe amount from applicant J. 6 Ramalakshmi and the possibility of inHuencing or intimidating the prosecution witnesses, the applicants do not deserve the concession of bail. The o?ences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are serious in nature and adversely a?ect the integrity of public administration and the sanctity of the recruitment process. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail applications. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations against both the applicants and the material collected during investigation, the fact that applicant J. Ramalakshmi was allegedly apprehended during the trap proceedings while accepting ₹5,00,000/- from the complainant, comprising ₹40,000/- in genuine currency and ₹4,60,000/- in dummy notes and the further allegation that she acted in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with applicant B. Rajshekhar Rao, who was associated with the sports trial as announcer-cum- scorer, as well as the statements and electronic evidence collected during investigation indicating their involvement in the alleged demand of illegal gratiFcation for facilitating the complainant's selection and medical Ftness and further considering the seriousness and gravity of the o?ences, I am of the considered view that the applicants do not deserve the beneFt of bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly the bail applications of the applicants namely- B. Rajshekhar Rao, and J. Ramalaxmi, involved in Crime No.RC1242026A0005, registered at Police Station CBI, ACB, 7 Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7 and 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. OJce is directed to send a certiFed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal