[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
