1 2026:CGHC:12172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 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 O.cer, O.ce 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 ;rst bail application ;led 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 oAence 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 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 working as an Assistant Statistical O.cer, was directly associated with the conduct and management of the Departmental Examination, 2024. It is alleged that by abusing his o.cial position, he remained in contact with the candidates appearing in the said examination as well as with other co-accused persons who were o.cials 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 oAences 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 oAence. It is further submitted that neither has the applicant demanded nor accepted any illegal grati;cation 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 ;led, 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 o.cial 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 oAence, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the bene;t 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 oAence 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 ;le an undertaking to the eAect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ;xed 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 ;xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su.cient 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 ;xed 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 ;xed 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 su.cient 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. O.ce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal