Bail granted after charge-sheet where bribery recovery was from the applicant’s table and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The applicant, an Assistant Grade-II posted in the office of the SDO (Light Machinery, Tubewell and GATE), Durg, was accused of demanding ₹10,000 from the complainant for sanctioning or releasing an advance of ₹5,00,000 from the complainant’s General Provident Fund account.

The complainant approached the ACB, following which a trap was laid and the applicant was allegedly apprehended while receiving the bribe amount. The amount was recovered from the applicant’s table, and the phenolphthalein test allegedly yielded a positive result.

Crime No. 36/2026 was registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 July 2026; the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and he had been suspended from service.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Whether the recovery of the alleged bribe amount from the applicant’s table, rather than from his physical possession, and the applicant’s contention that there was no demand or acceptance, justified grant of bail at the pre-trial stage.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, concerning acceptance or obtaining of undue advantage by a public servant.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of the proceedings, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the need for further custodial interrogation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, criminal antecedents, and other relevant circumstances.

The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court treated the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet as materially reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

Although the prosecution alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe, the alleged amount was recovered from the applicant’s table, and the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

The applicant had also been suspended, reducing the apparent risk of interference arising from his official position.

On the material before it, the Court found no substantial likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and therefore concluded that continued detention was not necessary, without determining whether demand and acceptance under Section 7 would ultimately be proved at trial.

It directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was made subject to conditions that he shall not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; shall not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and shall appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.