Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 962 of 2025 Chinmay Agrawal S/o Chandra Prakash Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/ o Ward No. 41, Subhash Nagar, Near New Masjid, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.). ---- (Wrongly Mentioned As Chinmay Agrawal And Oth S/o Chandra Prakash Agrawal Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Surpa, R.N.M. Jamgaon-(R) Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.03.2025 Order on Board 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. 62/2024, registered at Police Station : Economic Offence Wing /ACB, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report stating that on 22/10/2024, his mother purchased a 1.48- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 acre piece of land located in village Surpa, Patwari Halka No. 54, Tehsil Patan. For the purpose of mutation and obtaining the Rin Pustika, he approached the Patwari (present applicant). However, the applicant demanded Rs. 90,000 for completing the process and allegedly threatened to halt the mutation if the money was not paid. Unwilling to give the bribe, the complainant filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, who then directed an inspector to investigate the matter. The complainant also recorded a conversation between himself and the Patwari as evidence. Subsequently, in connection with the Rs. 90,000 demand, the complainant, Prakash Chandra Dewangan, paid Rs. 20,000 to the co-accused, Bhushan Lal Mahar, leading to the commission of the said offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the first complaint on dated 10.12.2024 complainant has stated that applicant has demanded Rs. 70,000/- but in the second complaint on dated 24.12.2024 it was stated that applicant has demanded Rs. 90,000/- and thus the allegations are vague and only to falsely to implicate the applicant has lodged this false case. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the applicant and it is seized from the co-accused Bhushan Lal Mahar who is the Kotwar. He further submits that the applicant is suffering from serious ailments, the copy of the medical prescription is annexed as Annexure A/4. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 3 24.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant, a Patwari, demanded a bribe of Rs. 90,000 from the complainant for processing the mutation and Rin Pustika of his mother’s 1.48-acre land. Upon the complainant’s refusal to pay, the applicant allegedly threatened to stop the mutation. He further submits that as evidence, the complainant recorded a conversation with the applicant. He also submits that the complainant paid Rs. 20,000 to the co-accused, Bhushan Lal Mahar, in connection with the bribe. These facts indicate the alleged involvement of the applicant in a corruption case. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegation is that the applicant, a Patwari, demanded a bribe of Rs. 90,000 from the complainant for processing the mutation and Rin Pustika of his mother’s 1.48-acre land and upon the complainant’s refusal to pay, the applicant allegedly threatened to stop the mutation, but nothing has been seized from the applicant, it is seized from the co-accused Bhushan Lal Mahar who is the Kotwar and further the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he has no criminal antecedents and he is in 4 jail since 24.12.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Chinmay Agrawal, involved in Crime No. 62/2024, registered at Police Station : Economic Offence Wing /ACB, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and 5 the applicant fail 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice