Malik Ram Bandhe vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicants, Malik Ram Bandhe and Hukum Singh Kanwar, are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 115/2026, registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, for offences under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that on January 9, 2026, the applicants, impersonating as State GST Inspectors, intercepted a truck carrying iron scrap. They allegedly seized the truck and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for its release. The complainant claims to have paid Rs. 50,000/- without a receipt, which led him to suspect foul play and report the incident to the State Tax Commissioner. The applicants, however, claim they are innocent, were lawfully performing their duties as GST officials, and that the allegations of demand and acceptance of money are false.

Held

The Court rejected the bail application of the applicants. The Court found that, prima facie, on January 9, 2026, the applicants, representing themselves as State GST Inspectors, intercepted a truck loaded with iron scrap. They seized the vehicle and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for its release, out of which Rs. 50,000/- was allegedly paid without a receipt and not deposited in the government account. The Court noted that the applicants, being government servants, prima facie misused their official position and abused their authority for unlawful gain, with their involvement in the alleged offence appearing evident at this stage. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, particularly the misuse of official position and illegal demand and acceptance of money, and in the interest of a fair and proper investigation, the Court was not inclined to grant bail. The bail application was accordingly rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants, who are alleged to be State GST Inspectors, are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of impersonation, illegal demand, and acceptance of gratification. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants contend they are innocent and falsely implicated. They assert that as GST officials, they lawfully intercepted the truck for document verification, but the driver failed to produce valid documents. They deny demanding or receiving any amount, stating the Rs. 50,000/- payment allegation is baseless. They argue the offences are not punishable with life imprisonment or death, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not met. They also highlight their reputation, residency, and lack of flight risk. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, emphasizing the complainant's report detailing the alleged impersonation as GST Inspectors, the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the payment of Rs. 50,000/- without a receipt. The State argues that the allegations are serious, involving impersonation and illegal gratification, thus disentitling the applicants to bail.