1
2024:CGHC:50471
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8321 of 2024
Birendra Nath Pandey S/o Lt. Vidyadhar Pandey Aged About 56 Years
Occupation Patwari, H. No. 31 Gram Bhittikala, Ambikapur, District-
Saruguja Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- E.O. W. / A.C. B. Raipur, District- District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Awath Tripathi, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
20/12/2024
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. 42/2024 registered at Police Station
E.O.W./ Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Domanram Rajwade
2
has lodged a written complaint against the applicant with the
allegation that that the applicant is working as a patwari that for the
purpose of fauti namantran, the applicant has demanded the sum of
rupees five thousand 5,000/-, and on the basis of the aforesaid
complaint, anti curroption burea has prepared the all the necessary
formalities and thereafter on 27.06.2024 again according to the
direction of the A.C.B. the complainant met with the applicant and
made a request to kindly take some less amount rather than 5,000/-
but the applicant did not agreed then on 29.09.2024, the
complainant at about 12 P.M. again presented before the A.C.B
Ambikapur branch, and according to their direction, the
complainant in presence of the two panch-witnesses and at about
14.55 o'clock when the complainant handed over the amount of
rupees five thousand, the trap party arrested the applicant red-
handed and seized the amount of rupees five thousand with the
applicant and thereafter due investigation filed the charge-sheet
under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
never demanded the aforesaid amount from the complainant, in
fact, he has already done the fauti namantran (mutation) prior to the
so-called trap set up for the applicant. So, it cannot be said that the
applicant has demanded the aforesaid amount of rupees five
thousand for the purpose of fauti namantran because, prior to the
aforesaid arrangement of trap, the applicant has already ordered for
the fauti namantran and the name of the complainant and other
legal heirs where duly recorded in the name of revenue records. He
3
further submits that the applicant has been implicated in the
commission of the aforesaid offence due to village rivalry, though
directly the applicant is not at all knows the complainant and he has
been implicated in a planned manner for the very purpose to
somehow terminate the applicant from his job, and accordingly the
rival group has succeeded in their Aim, by implicating in such a
manner. The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2024, the applicant has
one criminal antecedent, in which he is on bail and in the present
case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court 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 the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 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. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant
since 20.09.2024, the fact that for the purpose of fauti namantran
the applicant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the
complainant to which the complainant immediately paid a sum of
Rs.5,000/- by cash to the applicant and was a trap laid down by the
ACB, also considering the fact that the applicant has already
4
suspended from his service, further the applicant has one criminal
antecedent, in which he is on bail and in the present case, charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court, this Court is of the
view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant-Birendra Nath Pandey, involved in Crime No.
42/2024 registered at Police Station E.O.W./ Anti Corruption
Bureau, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Section 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 sufÏcient
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
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,
5
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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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