1 2026:CGHC:41807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8323 of 2026 * - Lachchhan Singh Bhanu S/o Aghan Singh Aged About 42 Years Peon Manrega (Contract), Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, R/o Officers Colony, Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil - Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, State Economic Offences Wing And Anti Corruption Bureau Unit, Raipur (Wrong Mentioned As Bilaspur In The Order Sheet) District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Non-Applicant And MCRC No. 8497 of 2026 * - Nikhil Kashyap S/o Parmeshwar Kashyap, Aged About 39 Years In- Charge Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, Original Post Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, R/o Present Address - G - 202, Housing Board Colony, Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil - Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, State Economic Offences Wing And Anti Corruption Bureau Unit, Raipur (Wrong Mentioned As Bilaspur In The Order - Sheet), District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant And MCRC No. 8485 of 2026 * - Avinash Singh Rajput S/o Late Jaipal Singh Rajput Aged About 45 Years Assistant Grade-2, Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, R/o Officers Colony, Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil - Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, State Economic Offences Wing And Anti Corruption Bureau Unit, Raipur (Wrong Mentioned As Bilaspur In The Order Sheet), District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.26 11:00:21 +0530 2 For Respective Applicants : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey and Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocates For Non-Applicants/State : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. As all these are the first bail applications under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preferred by the respective applicants arise out of the same Crime No. 30/2026 registered at State Economic Offences Wing and Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. As per case of prosecution, complainant – Arun Kumar Bhardwaj, who is son of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Limtara, approached the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Limtara, Sakti (Nikhil Kashyap- Accused in MCRC No. 8497/2026) who was the prescribed authority to issue a cheque of Rs.12 lacs. Accused- Nikhil Kashyap advised the complainant to approach clerk of his office, who is applicant in MCRC No. 8485/2026 namely Avinash Singh Rajput. The said accused sent the complainant to applicant of MCRC No. 8323/2026 namely Lachchhan Singh Bhanu, a Peon in the office. It is alleged that the Chief Executive Officer directed the complainant to make payment of gratification of Rs.2 lacs. As per case of prosecution, a sum of Rs.1 lac was handed over to Lachchhan Singh Bhanu on 09.06.2026 and thereafter a complaint was made to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and on 15.06.2026, the said accused was caught 3 red handed while he was accepting remaining Rs.1 lac. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged against all 03 accused persons for commission of offence as stated above. 3. Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey and Mr. Virendra Verma, learned Advocates appearing for the respective applicants would submit that there was no demand and acceptance of gratification from Nikhil Kashyap and Avinash Singh Rajput. They would further submit that Lachchhan Singh Bhanu was not a competent authority either to release the cheque amounting Rs.12 lacs or to take any decision in this regard, thus, there was no legal acceptance. It is also argued that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicants who government servants are in jail since 15.06.2026 and they have no criminal antecedents. Thus, they would pray for grant of regular bail. 4. Dr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the submissions advanced by Advocates appearing for the applicants. He would submit that the complainant approached the Chief Executive Officer for release of cheque amounting Rs.12 lacs and the demand Rs.2 lacs was made. He would contend that pursuant to said demand, sum of Rs.1 lac was handed over to the Peon of the department on 09.06.2026 and subsequently on 15.06.2026. It is also argued that Lachchhan Singh Bhanu was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials and there is prima facie case against these applicants, therefore, all bail applications deserve to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Present is a case where alleged demand was made by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Sakti namely Nikhil Kashyap, whereas gratification was accepted by a Peon namely Lachchhan Singh Bhanu. The clerk of the department namely Avinash Singh Rajput was also not in picture when the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau conducted raid. It is well settled principles of law, particularly with regard to proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, that there must be demand and acceptance by same authority or official. 7. In the present case alleged demand was made by another authority and the amount was seized from a Peon and charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in jail since 15.06.2026 and they have no criminal antecedents, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicants. According all the bail applications are allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of each of the applicants 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, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions :- I. They 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court; II. They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; III. They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till the disposal of the 5 trial; and, IV. They shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature in future. 9. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicants on the applications for the grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made in the course of this order. 10. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti