[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Abhishek Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12534
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1264 of 2026
Abhishek Soni S/o Shri Ramadhar Soni, Aged About 32 Years Cooperative
Inspector, Office Of The Deputy, Commissioner Of Cooperation And Deputy
Registrar Of Cooperative Societiesand Authorized Officer Of Maa Saleshvari
, Bahudeshiya Kisan Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Tukudah Panjiyan
Kramank 455, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh R/o Village Chitarpur Ps.
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Lundra . District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.16
17:38:54 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Anti - Corrupation Bureau Ambikapur,
Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
16.03.2026
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
69/2025 registered at Police Station - Anti-Corrupation Bureau
Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, amended 2018.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Shri
Shubham Jaiswal, applied for a contractual Accountant position in a
multipurpose cooperative society in Surajpur District under the
National Cooperative Development Corporation's scheme. After being
declared the sole eligible candidate following a typing test and
interview on 05/12/2025, the applicantbeing a Cooperative Inspector
and Authorized Officer, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-
for issuing the appointment order. Following a verification of the
complaint by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ambikapur, which
confirmed the demand, a case was registered under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on
24/01/2026, and the matter is currently pending as Special Case No.
02/2026, with the court scheduling arguments on the framing of
charges for 10/2/2026.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. t is
alleged that the applicant demanded a bribe for performing his official
work; however, in fact, no such demand was ever made as there was
no work pending before the applicant. The selection process in
question was governed by the "Implementation Guidelines" (Condition
10.3), and since the complainant was the only eligible candidate, the
appointment was merely a procedural outcome and not a matter of
discretion, thereby rendering the allegation of demand of bribe
logically inconsistent. It is further submitted that the complainant,
being the sole candidate, apprehended delay in his appointment and
has misused the ACB machinery to exert undue pressure upon the
applicant, resulting in his false implication. In corruption cases, the
substantial part of the investigation is generally completed on the day
of the trap and arrest itself, and the remaining procedures are merely
official formalities which do not require the continued detention of the
accused. The applicant is a career Government servant who has
already been placed under deemed suspension due to his detention,
causing severe professional and financial hardship. His service record
is otherwise unblemished and therefore his continued pre-trial
incarceration is unwarranted.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant,
and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been
submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained
in jail since 17.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present
applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Abhishek Soni, involved in Crime No. 69/2025
registered at Police Station - Anti-Corrupation Bureau Ambikapur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, amended 2018, be released on bail on his
furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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 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.
8. Office 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
Vaibhav
