Grant of bail based on the principle of parity when a co-accused with similar allegations has already been granted bail, considering the filing of the charge-sheet and lack of criminal antecedents.

Order on Board

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the defaults pointed out by the Registry have not been cured.

2. 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. 07/2026 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, Unit, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Ravi Kumar Bani submitted a written complaint alleging that the main accused, Poonam Chand Agrawal , demanded a bribe of Rs.60,000/- for recommending the final extension of time and conducting physical verification of the construction work executed by the complainant. It is alleged that on 05.02.2026, when the complainant met Poonam Chand Agrawal , he instructed the complainant to hand over the amount to the present applicant. Pursuant to a trap organized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur Unit, District Surguja (C.G.), a sum of Rs.5,000/- was allegedly recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Hence, the bail application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that identically situated co-accused, namely, Poonam Chand Agrawal has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3215 of 2026. He also submits that the present applicant has already been suspended from the service. The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that pursuant to the demand allegedly made by the main accused, Poonam Chand Agrawal , the applicant accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on his behalf, which was subsequently recovered during the trap proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur Unit, District Surguja (C.G.). However, could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused, Poonam Chand Agrawal has already been granted bail by this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.02.2026, the fact that though the allegation against the applicant is that pursuant to the demand allegedly made by the main accused, Poonam Chand Agrawal , the applicant accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on his behalf, which was subsequently recovered during the trap proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur Unit, District Surguja (C.G.), but considering the fact that the applicant has already been suspended from the service and co-accused, namely, Poonam Chand Agrawal has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3215 of 2026, the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused and the has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed,