1 CGHC010342642026 2026:CGHC:41599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8237 of 2026 Shiv Kumar Thakur S/o Shivnath Thakur Aged About 58 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Mitan Chowk Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - E O W / A C B Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pandey, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 24/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.36/2026, registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, while posted as Assistant Grade-II in the office of SDO (Light Machinery, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Tubewell and GATE), Durg, allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant Nand Kumar Kamde for sanctioning/releasing an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from his General Provident Fund account. In this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint before the ACB, Raipur. Pursuant thereto, a trap was laid down and the applicant was allegedly caught red-handed while receiving the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in custody since 02.07.2026. He would further contend that the alleged bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the table of the applicant and not from his physical possession and there was no demand of bribe by the applicant. He would submit that, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not prima facie established. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and custodial interrogation is no longer required. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the applicant, while holding the post of Assistant Grade-II, misused his official position and demanded an 3 amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for sanctioning/releasing the advance amount from his General Provident Fund account. He would further submits that a trap was laid by the ACB and during the trap proceedings, the phenolphthalein test was conducted, pursuant to which the colour of the solution changed to pink. It is further submitted that the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the table of the applicant. He would also submit that the applicant has been suspended from service. Therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the material available on record. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and particularly, the fact that the alleged bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the table of the applicant, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in custody since 02.07.2026 and he has no criminal antecedent further he has already been suspended from service and considering that custodial interrogation is no longer required and there appears to be no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, thus without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal