Smt. Elongka Minj W/o Saluj Minj Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 105 v. Union of India Through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1265 of 2025 Smt. Elongka Minj W/o Saluj Minj Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 105, Kalpvriksha Resort, Old Dhamtari Road, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.) --- Applicant versus Union of India Through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), District – Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant Along with MCRC No. 1195 of 2025 Soumya Ranjan Malik S/o Pitambar Malik Aged About 26 Years R/o Near A.K. Interiors, Netaji Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.). Permanent Address Near Sadar Police Station, Lal Tikra, Balangir (Odisha) Versus Union of India Through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant ---Applicant For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/UOI : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Standing Counsel for UOI. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 21.02.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime/FIR No. RC1242024A0010, registered at Police Station – Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (PC Act) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the applicants, namely, Smt. 2 Elongka Minj and Soumya Ranjan Malik, respectively being Superintendent and Inspector of CGST, Range – II, Division – 03, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) along with the co-accused demanded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the Complainant (Mr. Rajesh Verma, Proprietor, Verma Medical) in lieu of settling the matter of notice issued to him and thereafter were caught red-handed taking a bribe of Rs. 60,000/- in furtherance of the same on 29.11.2024. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that applicant, namely, Smt. Elongka Minj was the Superintendent and applicant, namely, Soumya Ranjan Malik, was the Inspector of CGST, Range – II, Division – 03, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.), and the applicant, namely, Smt. Elongka Minj was red handed taking a bribe of Rs. 60,000/-. The applicants are in jail since 29.11.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for UOI opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case but the Prosecution Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act has not been taken from the competent authority and it is still awaited. It is further submitted that the applicants, namely, Smt. Elongka Minj and Soumya Ranjan Malik, respectively being Superintendent and Inspector of CGST, Range – II, Division – 03, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) along with the co-accused demanded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the Complainant (Mr. Rajesh Verma, Proprietor, Verma Medical) in lieu of settling the 5. 6. 3 matter of notice issued to him and thereafter were caught red-handed taking a bribe of Rs. 60,000/- in furtherance of the same on 29.11.2024, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants, further the applicant, namely, Smt. Elongka Minj was the Superintendent and applicant, namely, Soumya Ranjan Malik, was the Inspector of CGST, Range – II, Division – 03, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.), and the applicant, namely, Smt. Elongka Minj is said to have been red-handed taking a bribe of Rs. 60,000/-, charge-sheet has been filed in this case but the Prosecution Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act has not been taken from the competent authority and it is still awaited, the applicants are in jail since 29.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants, Smt. Elongka Minj and Soumya Ranjan Malik, involved in Crime/FIR No. RC1242024A0010, registered at Police Station – Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (PC Act) and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 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 4 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, 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 certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar