1 2026:CGHC:18110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3542 of 2026 Ramnarayan Baya S/o Rampyari Baya Aged About 61 Years Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Mopka, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G., R/o Subhash Ward, Lakhan Colony, In Front Of Rout Mohalla, Tehsil Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, P.S. EOW/ACB, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. This is the 昀椀rst bail application 昀椀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. 10/2026 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as Amended Act 2018. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the present applicant is posted as Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Mopka, District Baloda Bazar. It is alleged that the complainant’s father, namely Vijay Kumar Dandey, who is also working in the same school as Lecturer LB Hindi and was not physically 昀椀t, had been undergoing medical treatment, and for preparation and processing of his salary for the past 5 to 6 years, the present applicant had been demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000 as illegal grati昀椀cation. It is further alleged that since September 2025, the applicant increased the demand to Rs. 15,000, whereafter the complainant submitted a written complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau. It is also the case of the prosecution that the incident is stated to have taken place on 19.02.2026, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 26.02.2026. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per the complaint itself, it has been alleged that a demand of Rs. 10,000 was made about 5 to 6 years ago, however, no complaint was lodged before any authority during the said period, which renders the allegation doubtful. It is further submitted that the applicant has, in fact, been assisting the complainant’s father, Vijay Kumar Dandey, who is working as Lecturer LB Hindi in Government Higher Secondary School, Mopka and was su昀昀ering from paralysis and unable to attend school regularly. It is contended that the amount allegedly seized from the applicant is not illegal 3 grati昀椀cation but a loan amount which had been given to the complainant’s father in his time of need. It is also submitted that the transcription of the pre trap conversation does not reveal any demand of illegal grati昀椀cation by the applicant, which clearly indicates his innocence. He further submits that the applicant had been extending assistance in preparation of salary and other o昀케cial documents of the complainant’s father due to his medical condition, however, due to certain administrative constraints, all work could not be processed timely, which has led to the present false complaint being lodged by the complainant. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.02.2026 and is a 61-year-old and has no previous criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet has already been 昀椀led, 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 non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been 昀椀led in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature as he, being a public servant holding the post of Principal, has abused his o昀케cial position by demanding illegal grati昀椀cation from the complainant in connection with preparation of salary. It is submitted that the complaint was made before the Anti Corruption Bureau on the basis of which a trap was organized and the applicant was caught with the tainted amount, which clearly establishes his involvement in the o昀昀ence. It is further submitted that the prosecution has collected su昀케cient 4 material during investigation including the trap proceedings and other evidence which prima facie substantiate the demand and acceptance of illegal grati昀椀cation by the applicant. It is contended that merely because there is some delay in lodging the FIR or that the applicant has taken a defence of loan, the same cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the direct recovery and incriminating circumstances against him. Considering the gravity of the o昀昀ence and the role attributed to the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the material available on record, though the allegations against the applicant pertain to demand and acceptance of illegal grati昀椀cation while discharging o昀케cial duties, but further considering the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been 昀椀led in the present case before the competent Court and he is aged about 61 years and is in jail since 25.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion. Taking into consideration the overall facts, age of the applicant and the period of detention and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant- Ramnarayan Baya, involved in Crime No. 10/2026 5 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 7 of the 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 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su昀케cient 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 昀椀xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 6 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 昀椀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 su昀케cient 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. 8. O昀케ce is directed to provide a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan