Soumya Ranjan Malik vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The applicants, Smt. Elongka Minj (Superintendent) and Soumya Ranjan Malik (Inspector) of CGST, Raipur, were arrested on 29.11.2024 in connection with FIR No. RC1242024A0010. The prosecution alleges they demanded Rs. 75,000/- from a complainant, Mr. Rajesh Verma, proprietor of Verma Medical, to settle a notice issued to him, and were subsequently caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 60,000/-. The applicants have been in custody since their arrest. The charge-sheet has been filed, but prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is still awaited.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. While acknowledging the serious allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe, and the fact that the applicants were caught red-handed, the Court took into consideration that the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had not yet been obtained from the competent authority and was still awaited. The Court also noted that the applicants had been in custody since 29.11.2024 and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time. The ratio decidendi is that the absence of mandatory prosecution sanction, coupled with the prolonged period of incarceration and the anticipated delay in trial, warrants the grant of bail. The applicants were released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring their presence during trial and preventing misuse of liberty.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's Argument: The learned counsel for the applicants argued that they are innocent, falsely implicated, and have no prior criminal antecedents. They have been in jail since 29.11.2024, and the trial is likely to be lengthy, thus praying for bail. Revenue's Argument: The learned standing counsel for the Union of India opposed the bail application, highlighting that the applicants were caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 60,000/- in furtherance of a demand of Rs. 75,000/-. It was also submitted that while the charge-sheet has been filed, prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is still awaited.
Sections Cited
Section 7, Section 19, Section 483, Section 61(2), Section 269, Section 84, Section 209, Section 351
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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)
---Applicant Versus Union of India Through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), District – Raipur (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/UOI : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Standing Counsel for UOI. Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
Order on Board 21.02.2025
The applicant has preferred this First Bai
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.