1 2026:CGHC:18406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3648 of 2026 Satyendra Diwakar S/o Melauram Diwakar Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Semartal, Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), Presently Residing At Q.No.359, S E C L Colony, Dipka, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau (Wrongly Written As Buro), Unit Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. Gen. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 04/2026 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Unit Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, namely Shyamta Prasad Tandon, is a friend of Dukhiram, who is the son of Vedram. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 On 21.01.2026, the complainant Shyamta Prasad Tandon submitted an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, District Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that the father of his friend, namely Vedram, is the owner of an agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 981, admeasuring 0.2270 hectares, situated at Village Darri, District Korba. It is further alleged that due to his ill health, Vedram requested the complainant to approach the officials of CSPDCL for installation of a transformer on his land. Accordingly, after receiving the application from Vedram, the complainant along with Dukhiram visited the CSPDCL office at Dipka and submitted the application on 25.12.2025. After three days, the present applicant, who was posted as Assistant Engineer at CSPDCL, Dipka, District Korba (C.G.), accompanied them and inspected the said agricultural land. Subsequently, on the next day i.e. 20.01.2026, Dukhiram met the applicant in his office, where the applicant allegedly instructed him to deposit an official challan amount of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) for installation of the transformer and further demanded a separate amount of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) as illegal gratification (for “tea and water”). Thereafter, Dukhiram allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the applicant and sought time to pay the remaining amount. Thereafter, on 21.01.2026, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, District Bilaspur, narrating the entire incident. Acting upon the said complaint, the ACB officials laid a trap to apprehend the applicant red-handed. For this purpose, a voice recorder was provided to the complainant to 3 record the conversation regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. Pursuant thereto, the complainant again met the applicant with the tainted currency notes, which had been treated with chemical powder by the ACB officials. The complainant handed over the said tainted notes to the applicant. Immediately thereafter, the ACB officials entered the office of the applicant and recovered the said currency notes from beneath the desk of the applicant. Consequently, a crime has been registered against the applicant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has neither committed nor been involved in the alleged offence and has been roped in merely on the basis of false and concocted allegations. It is further submitted that the applicant never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant, rather, it was the complainant who was repeatedly attempting to induce the applicant to expedite the work and was himself offering money illegally, which was consistently refused by the applicant. The amount allegedly recovered was not towards any bribe, but was purportedly left by the complainant under the pretext of depositing the official challan amount and the applicant had neither demanded nor consciously accepted the same, having no reason to suspect that a false trap was being orchestrated against him. It is further argued that the land bearing Khasra No. 981, admeasuring 0.2270 hectares, belongs to Vedram, and the 4 complainant has no direct concern with the said land. In fact, there were outstanding dues against Vedram with CSPDCL, and the applicant had clearly informed them that without clearance of previous dues, installation of the transformer was not permissible. It is submitted that the complainant, in an attempt to secure illegal advantage, adopted improper means and upon the applicant’s refusal to extend any undue favour, resorted to arm-twisting tactics by falsely implicating him in the present case. It is also pointed out that as per the usual procedure, installation of a transformer takes approximately 90 days from the date of application, however, in the present case, the application was submitted on 25.12.2025 and the complaint was lodged within about 30 days, without awaiting completion of the prescribed process, which itself raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the allegations. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has been serving as an Assistant Engineer at Dipka, District Korba for more than 11 years with an unblemished record, and no prior allegations have ever been made against him and now he has been suspended from services further he has no criminal antecedent and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he 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 filed 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 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 28.01.2026, has no previous criminal history and has already been suspended from service. The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing 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-Satyendra Diwakar, involved in Crime No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Unit Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 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 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 6 (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 applicant is 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 against him in accordance with law. 9. Office 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