1 2025:CGHC:16335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 03-04-2025 Order delivered on 08-4-2025 MCRC No. 1631 of 2025 1 - Shashank Goyal S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Goyal Aged About 31 Years R/o X-116, A-1, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Bhumika Katiyar W/o Shri Shashank Goyal Aged About 31 Years R/o X- 116, A-1, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Applicant(s) versus 1 - Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Applicant : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Shri S.S. Bhaduri and Shri Harsh Dave, Advocates For Respondent/CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate through VC C A V Order Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 for grant of bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.RC1242024A0004 registered at Police Station CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 120B & 1 henceforth ‘the BNSS’ RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.08 13:26:06 +0530 2 420 of the Indian Penal Code2 and Sections 7, 7(A) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)3. 2. In respect of certain illegalities and irregularities committed by the authorities of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission4 in the recruitment process, two separate FIRs bearing Crime No.05/2024 of EOW/ACB, Chhattisgarh, Raipur and Crime No. 28/2024 of Arjunda PS, Dist. Balod, Chhattisgarh were registered and subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation5. In the case, there were seven accused persons. A-1 Taman Singh Sonwani, the then Chairman of the PSC; A-2 Shravan Kumar Goyal, Director of Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd.; A-3 Shashank Goyal (son of A-2) (Applicant No.1 herein); A-4 Ms. Bhumika Katiyar (Daughter-in-law of A-2) (Applicant No.2 herein); A-5 Nitesh Sonwani & A-6 Sahil Sonwani (both nephews of A-1) and A-7 Lalit Ganvir, Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. For the sake of convenience, the applicants herein are being referred as A-3 & A-4, respectively. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as far as the present applicants Shashank Goyal (A-3) and Bhumika Katiyar (A-4) is concerned, during the period 2020-2022 the PSC conducted the State Service Examination. At that time, A-1 was the Chairman of the PSC and he gave undue advantage to his family members and the blue-eyed boys. A-2, who is the father of A-3 and father-in-law of A-4, is the Director of Bajrang Power and Ispat Limited and in that capacity, he used to provide funds to 2 henceforth ‘the IPC’ 3 henceforth ‘the PC Act’ 4 henceforth ‘the PSC’ 5 henceforth ‘the CBI’ 3 the NGOs under the head of Corporate Social Responsibility6. According to the prosecution, the wife of A-1 is the Chairperson of one Non- Governmental Organization7 namely; Gramin Vikas Samiti8 and to the said GVS, on two different occasions, A-2 gave an amount of Rs.45.00 lacs under the head of CSR. The allegations are that the said amount is provided by A-2 prior to preliminary examination and final examination conducted by the PSC for the State Service Examination, 2021 and in lieu of that, the question papers of preliminary examination and final examination were provided to A-2, who, in turn, provided the same to the present applicants i.e. A-3 & A-4, who are the son and daughter-in- law, respectively of A-2. On the basis of the said question papers, both A-3 & A-4 succeeded in the recruitment process and got selection on the top posts i.e. Deputy Collector. Thus, A-3 & A-4 committed the offence. 4. (a) Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants (A-3 & A-4) would submit that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated. He would submit that the applicants belong to a business family and have good reputation in the society and they have no concern with the affairs of the PSC. He would submit that A-3 & A-4 are brilliant and duly qualified persons and as such there is no occasion for them to take undue advantage of alleged leaked question papers of the PSC. He submits that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, A-2 rendered financial assistance to the GVS, which is a NGO under the head of CSR. In fact, A-3 & A-4 have not at all concerned with the funds 6 henceforth ‘the CSR’ 7 henceforth ‘NGO’ 8 henceforth ‘GVS’ 4 provided by the A-2 to GVS because the said transactions have allegedly been made as per the provisions of the CSR. According to the learned counsel, the PSC advertised for 171 posts and pursuant to the same, A-3 & A-4, who are having the requisite eligiblity criteria applied and participated in the selection process. However, on account of some complaints, which have been made with regard to alleged irregularities committed in the said recruitment process, two FIRs were lodged at different police stations which was subsequently transferred to the CBI. In the said crime, A-2, who is the father and father-in-law of A-3 & A-4, has been implicated alleging that he siphoned the funds to the family members of A-1 for obtaining questions papers before the examination and in turn the same has been provided to A-3 & A-4. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the financial assistance rendered by the company of A-2 under the head of CSR to GVS, as per the statute, has been connected with the examination conducted by the PSC. Learned counsel would next submit that from the statement of Arun Kumar Dwivedi who has printed question papers of the preliminary and final examinations at Kolkata (West Bengal) it is crystal clear that they sent the question papers to the PSC directly and handed over to Ms Arti Washnik, Controller of the Examination, PSC, who has not been made as accused. According to the learned senior counsel, there is no memorandum of A-1 & A-7. He would submit that in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed on 16/01/2025 and the conclusion of the trial will take a long time for its conclusion as there were several witnesses. The applicants are in jail since 12/01/2025 and 5 A-4 is suffering from sever ailments and taking the treatment regularly. Learned counsel would submit that A-3 is a Govt. servant and without obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution, he has been arrested. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are fully cooperating the investigating agency. (c) Leaned counsel would submit that at the time of arrest, no intimation regarding reason of arrest was provided to the applicants, hence, the provisions of Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C. has not been complied with in its true perspective. Further, there is no criminal antecedents against them. He would pray that the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 5. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the CBI, per contra, would oppose the bail application. He would submit that the brother of A-1 namely; Anil Kumar Sonwani, who is the Secretary of GVS, has categorically stated that the question papers brought for A-5 & A-6 (nephews of this witness and A-1), were provided by A-7, under the instruction of A-1, to A-2 for onward sharing of the same to A-3 & A-4, applicants herein. The said witness categorically accepted receipt of payment of Rs.20.00 lacs and Rs.25.00 lacs on 02/03/2022 & 18/05/2022, respectively under the CSR head from Barjang Ispat Limited. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that the notice as required under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C has been issued to the applicants on two occasions, however, they failed to appear before the Authorities and not cooperating the Investigating Agency. He would submit that on 6 12/01/2025, the applicants appeared in the CBI office and for non compliance of the provisions of Setion 41 A, they were arrested because of non divulging the true facts to reach the logical conclusion. With regard to obtaining sanction for prosecution is concerned, by referring to Section 197 of the Cr.P.C and Section 19 (1) of the PC Act would submit that in the case in hand, the sanction is not required to be obtained as the applicants have not implicated in the case while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of the official duty. So far as, the submission of the applicants that the controller of the examination has not been made as accused in the case is concerned, learned counsel would submit that all the persons/ authorities who are allegedly involved in the crime in question, are under the radar of the Investigating Agency and they would take appropriate steps against the culprits in accordance with law, as the charge-sheet itself shows that the investigation regarding some of the persons who are allegedly involved in the subject crime is still going on. He would submit that the bail application bearing no. MCRC No. 1307/2025 of father and father-in-law of A-3 & A-4, respectively, i.e. A- 2 has been considered and rejected by this Court vide order dated 22/03/2025. Thus, the applicants are not entitled for bail and he would pray the bail application may be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and also gone through the charge sheet, which has been placed before this Court. 7. From bare perusal of the charge sheet and the statement of brother of A-1 namely; Anil Kumar Sonwani, Secretary of GVS, it is quite vivid that A-2 has close links with some high and mighty officials of the PSC, as 7 the wife, brother and nephew (A-5) of A-1 (the then Chairman of the PSC), were the Chairperson, Secretary and Member, respectively of the NGO i.e. GVS. In the name of GVS, A-2 obtained financial approval from the CSR and BoD of Bajrang Ispat and thereafter the same has been siphoned to the family members of A-1 prior to preliminary and final examination of PSC and on the basis of the same he succeeded in obtaining question papers for onward providing the same to the A-3 & A-4 who are son and daughter-in-law of A-2, who got selected on the post of Deputy Collectors. 8. A person who indulges in facilitating leakage of question paper relating to competitive examinations, plays with the career and future of lacs of young aspirants, who are ‘burning the midnight oil’ to prepare for competitive exams. Such an act is more heinous than an offence of murder because by killing a person, only one family gets affected but by ruining the career of lacs of aspirants whole society is adversely impacted. Therefore, the alleged charges levelled against the accused persons including the present applicants can by no stretch of imagination be termed as ordinary charges. The action of the accused persons is clear example of ‘fence eating the crop’. 9. As far as the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C before prosecuting A-3 is concerned, it is noteworthy to mention here that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty. The guiding principle governing the necessity of prior sanction stands well crystallized by the Supreme 8 Court in a catena of decisions. The pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated. Thus, before taking action against A-3, who is a Government servant and working as Sub Registrar, no sanction is required to prosecute him, as the present crime is relating to leakage of question paper of the PSC examination. Since no reasonable link exists between the act complained of and the official duties of A-3, therefore, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC is not attracted. 10. The Investigating Agency issued notices to the applicants under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C on two occasions and when they failed, again notice was issued and pursuant to the same, the applicants appeared before the Agency on 12/01/2025, wherein, the officials of the CBI informed about the crime to the applicants and after following the due process, they have been arrested. Thus, it cannot be said that the arrest is illegal and not in accordance with law. 11. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the seriousness of allegations levelled against the applicants and also considering the statement of brother of A-1 namely; Anil Kumar Sonwani, who categorically stated that the question paper leaked for A-5 & A-6, who are nephews of this witness and A-1, and the said question papers also provided to A-2 by A-7, under the instruction of A-1, for onward supply to A-3 & A-4, who are son and daughter-in-law of A-2, respectively and on the basis of the same the 9 couple got selected for the post of Deputy Collectors and also particularly considering the fact the bail application of A-2 has already been rejected, and further considering the fact that according to CBI, the investigation is still going on in respect of other persons who are allegedly involved in the crime in question, prima facie, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicants (A-3 & A-4). 12. As a sequel, the present bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Rahul