1 2026:CGHC:3974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1971 of 2025 Premlata Padmakar D/o Tiharu Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o E 2-17, IAS Colony, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) At Present R/o F-2, GAD Colony, Bemetara, Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station A.C.B./ E.O.W. Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Keshav Dewangan and Mayank Chandrakar, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.01.27 11:06:28 +0530 2 applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.64/2025 registered at Police Station – ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC and also under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. As per the story of prosecution, the applicant is a government Officers (State Administrative Service) and presently is holding the post of C.E.O. Jila Panchayat, Bemetara. In the year 2023, the state government issued an order for promotion of Patwari to the post of R.I. and in compliance of the same in the year 2024, the concerned authorities conducted the examination for the promotion of Patwari to Revenue Inspector in Revenue Department and during the said period, the present applicant who was holding the post of Additional Commissioner, Land Record, Chhattisgarh Raipur, conducted the examination of the same as per direction of higher authority wherein, the present applicant done her work properly with due process of law as an in-charge and before initiation of examination, she issued an order to her department for conduction of examination for promotional post of Patwari to Revenue inspector as an in-charge, thereafter the employees of the said department have conducted the examination with due process of law. After completion of examination, the promotion list was issued and thereafter complaints were made by President of Patwari Sangh, an inquiry was conducted and after completion of enquiry, the enquiry report 3 was submitted by the committee. On the basis of enquiry report submitted by the committee, a complaint was made before the concerned police station and after receiving the same the concerned police investigated the matter and only on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the committee, on 17.11.2025 FIR was registered against the present applicant and other co- accused persons under the aforementioned offences and till date the investigation is going on. Hence, this anticipatory bail application has been filed. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that on the date issuance of order for conduction of examination of R.I. promotion, the present applicant was holding the post of Additional Commissioner, Land Record, Chhattisgarh, Raipur and as per direction of higher authorities, she started the proceedings examination of R.I. promotion and direction/orders were issued to employees of her department for initiation of examination of promotion of Patwari as an in-charge. The concerned higher authority appointed the applicant as an in-charge for conduction of said examination and time to time changed the work of the applicant. It is submitted that as per perusal of the entire order, during the examination, she was in-charge of the said examination committee and employees of the said department have conducted the examination of the same, which clearly demonstrates that there is 4 no role of the present applicant in the said examination and only just to harass her, case has been registered against her. He submits that after conduction of examination, the concerned authority issued the promotion list and thereafter, when some of the candidates have not been selected for the next promotion i.e. Revenue Inspector, then only just to harass the authorities including present applicant, they made false complaint through their President before the concerned higher authorities of State Government and after receiving the same, a five member- committee was constituted and the said committee enquired the matter and submitted its enquiry report according to which, they found that there is no any illegality in the examination of R.I. promotion and the said examination has been conducted as per due process of law. He further submits that after issuance of inquiry report, some of the effected candidates who had participated in the examination of patwari promotion had filed the writ petition before this Court by challenging the validity of the procedure followed by the examination of R.I. promotion but, this Court, after perusal of the entire documents and inquiry report submitted by the committee, dismissed the same by observing that the applicant participated in the examination with open eyes, therefore she cannot challenge the validity of the procedure followed by the examination body and further observed that no documents have been filed by the applicant to demonstrate the objection she has raised, thus the offences which have been 5 registered against the present applicant are not made out. He therefore, prays that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and submitted that the applicant was posted as the then Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur and was the Officer-in-Charge of the Examination Branch for the Revenue Inspector Promotion Training Examination from Patwari to Revenue Inspector. He further submits that regarding the Revenue Inspector Promotion Training Examination 2024, after the selection of questions for the question paper, the applicant was involved with one Virendra Jatav in tasks such as spelling and typing error correction, page setting, question paper setting, and sealing work. It is submitted that the applicant, the then Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Land Records, C.G., Nava Raipur, and Officer-in-Charge- of the Examination Branch, was the officer responsible for the confidentiality of the examination. He contends that leaking of the question paper prior to the examination constitutes dereliction of official duty and demonstrates ineffective control over the entire examination. Further, it is submitted that the aspect regarding involvement and patronage of other officials is a matter of investigation and is being probed. It is further submitted that, at the relevant time, the applicant, being the then Joint 6 Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Land Records, C.G., Nava Raipur, was not only the Officer-in-Charge of the Examination Branch but also the Head of the question paper printing team, and thus was duty-bound to ensure strict confidentiality, restricted access and proper chain of custody of the question paper at every stage and it is also revealed from the Call Data Records that there were continuous telephonic calls and contact between the applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, further considering the material available on record, which shows that the role of the applicant was limited to administrative supervision in her capacity as an in-charge officer and no specific overt act has been attributed to her in relation to the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the promotional examination and the enquiry conducted by the five-member committee has found no illegality in the examination process, and the challenge to the same has already been rejected by this Court, therefore, in the absence of any cogent material indicating the necessity of custodial interrogation, and there being no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence, this Court is of the view 7 that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Premlata Padmakar, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant/s shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her/him/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her/him/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant/s and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant/s shall not involve herself/himself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya