She used to work as an air hostess before she left the aviation industry to begin preparation for public service examinations. After being selected in the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC), she worked in several districts of the state, including key ones such as Khandwa and Guna. During her tenure as City Superintendent of Police (CSP) in Guna, she was credited with introducing women’s mobile police stations at three police stations, intended to allow women to resolve certain disputes closer to their homes.

Now, Neha Pachisia has found herself in the limelight for a very different reason.

As an investigating officer in a case in Katni, where she is the CSP, Pachisia is accused of demanding Rs 15 lakh from the family of a man accused in a murder case. When they expressed inability to pay the amount, the officer allegedly got the land belonging to the father of the accused transferred to a person linked to her at a fraction of its market rate.

Story continues below this ad

An FIR has been registered against her and two others, with investigators examining the alleged exchange of money, the disputed land transaction, and the financial links between the people involved. The allegations have now prompted Chief Minister Mohan Yadav to order Pachisia’s immediate suspension.

‘Won’t tolerate misuse of official position’

In an official statement on Friday, Yadav said the Katni issue was extremely serious and that negligence, pressure or misuse of official position in matters concerning law and order would not be tolerated at any level. He also ordered an impartial investigation and said strict action would be taken against those found responsible in the matter.

Jabalpur Range Inspector General (IG) Pramod Verma said, “An FIR has been registered against CSP Pachisia and two other individuals under sections related to extortion, cheating, criminal conspiracy and misuse of official position. The matter relates to a murder case that Pachisia was investigating.”

He said, “It is alleged that, with the intention of providing undue benefit to the accused, she demanded a bribe of Rs 15 lakh. When the accused said that he did not have the money, the land belonging to his father was transferred and registered in the name of one of her associates.”

Story continues below this ad

The police inquiry subsequently turned to the property transaction and the money trail behind it.

The case

The family of Akash Lodhi, who was arrested in April in connection with the murder of a tribal man and released on bail in July, alleged that Pachisia pressured them to sell 2.15 hectares of land in Kanhwara in exchange for relief in the murder case. According to the complaint, Pachisia and the then station house officer allegedly demanded money in return for altering statements in court and facilitating the release of the accused.

The subsequent inquiry examined the circumstances surrounding the land transaction and found a significant disparity between its official value and the price at which it was sold. The land had a guideline value of more than Rs 82 lakh, but the sale deed was executed for just Rs 18.20 lakh. Investigators alleged that the transaction was carried out under police pressure, with Maroof Ahmed Hanafi, named as the buyer in the documents, acting as a frontman.

The inquiry found that Hanafi did not have sufficient funds to independently finance the purchase. On April 15, the day the land was registered in his name, Rs 15 lakh was credited into his bank account — Rs 10 lakh from an account belonging to a firm called Shine Partners and another Rs 5 lakh from one Kshitij Raj Barapatre.

Story continues below this ad

The investigation was conducted by senior police officers at Jabalpur police range where statements of more than 10 people connected with the matter were recorded during the inquiry, while Pachisia also appeared before the inquiry officer and recorded her statement.

Pachisia’s office was sealed after a case was registered against her and two other accused, Hanfi and Barapatre. The three have been booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s (BNS) sections 61 (forgery of valuable documents), 198 (false statements), 199 (false declarations),307 (theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt, or restraint) and 318(4) (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property).

The controversy, though, is not the only one that Pachisia has found herself at the centre of this year.

In July, she faced allegations of demanding Rs 30,000 from a transporter during a vehicle check. Following this, her driver was suspended, and she was relieved of the charge of three police stations.