Chattisgarh High Court
Virendra Jatav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12172
KUNAL
DEWANGAN NAFR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 2359 of 2026
Virendra Jatav S/o Lt. Sh. Nathuram Jatav Aged About 47 Years (Age
Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) Post- Assistant Statistical Officer,
Office Of Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur (C.G.) R/o H. No.- 19,
Shree Ji Dwarika Colony, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Acb/ Eow, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. Adv. Gen.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13/03/2026
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. 64/2025 registered at Police Station- ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 7(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, 1860.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant/accused, while 2 working as an Assistant Statistical Officer, was directly associated with the conduct and management of the Departmental Examination, 2024. It is alleged that by abusing his official position, he remained in contact with the candidates appearing in the said examination as well as with other co-accused persons who were officials associated with the Question Paper Printing Committee. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant, in connivance with the said co-accused persons, arranged to provide copies of the question paper to certain candidates prior to the examination. Through this illegal arrangement, the applicant and other co- accused persons, with the assistance of their associates, allegedly collected an amount exceeding Rs. 1 crore from the candidates appearing in the examination in consideration of providing the leaked question papers. Based upon such, aforesaid offences were registered against the accused.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that neither has the applicant demanded nor accepted any illegal gratification from any candidate and no such amount has been recovered from him. It is also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He further submits that there is no material available in the charge-sheet to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in fabrication or use of any forged document. It is also 3 submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time and continued detention of the applicant would cause serious hardship. Moreover, the co-accused persons, namely Premlata Padmakar and Leena Dewangan, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 1971/2025 and MCRCA No. 48/2026, respectively. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant, being a public servant, has abused his official position and played an active role in leaking the question paper of the Departmental Examination, 2024 in connivance with other co-accused persons and allegedly collected an amount exceeding Rs. 1 crore from candidates. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, the period of detention of the applicant since 20.11.2025, and the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and further considering that the co-accused persons, namely Premlata Padmakar and Leena Dewangan, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 1971/2025 and MCRCA No. 48/2026 respectively and the applicant has no criminal 4 antecedent, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let the applicant - Virendra Jatav, involved in Crime No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station- ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 7(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, 1860, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 him 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 5 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.
- S/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal