1 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters 2025:CGHC:34896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 17-07-2025 Order delivered on 22-07 - 2025 MCRC No. 4816 of 2025 Sahil Sonwani S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Sonwani, Presently Add-Baniyan 103, Housing Board Colony, Boriakala, Near Shadani Darbar, Raipur, Parmanent Add- Sarbada, P.S. Birezar, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) Anti Corruption Branch, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent MCRC No. 4824 of 2025 Nitesh Sonwani S/o Late Sh. Rajesh Sonwani Aged About 32 Years R/o House Number 1B, Rangmanch, Village Sarbada, Tehsil Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI), Anti Corruption Branch, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent MCRC No. 4826 of 2025 Lalit Ganvir S/o Late Sh. Arjun Lal Ganvir Aged About 60 Years (In Judicial Custody), R/o Ward No.13, Teachers Colony, Station Para, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:34 +0530 2 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation Through The Dy. Supdt. Of Police, P.S. - C.B.I., A.C.B., Raipur --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Applicants in MCrC Nos.4816/2025 & 4824/2025 For Applicant in MCrC No.4826/2025 : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocates Shri Akshat Gupta, Advocate (through VC) For Respondent/CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate through VC with Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate C A V Order Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 1. Since all the bail applications arising out of same crime number, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these first bail applications 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/Economic Offence Wing, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 120B & 420 of the Indian Penal Code2 and Sections 7, 7(A) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)3. 1 henceforth ‘the BNSS’ 2 henceforth ‘the IPC’ 3 henceforth ‘the PC Act’ 3 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters 3. 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); A-4 Ms. Bhumika Katiyar (Daughter-in-law of A-2); A-5 Nitesh Sonwani (nephew of A-1) (Applicant in MCRC No.4824/2025) & A-6 Sahil Sonwani (nephew of A-1) (Applicant in MCRC No.4816/2025) and A-7 Lalit Ganvir, Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC (Applicant in MCRC No.4826/2025). For the sake of convenience, the applicants herein are being referred as A-5, A-6 and A-7, respectively. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as far as the present applicants Nitesh Sonwani (A-5), Sahil Sonwani (A-6) and Lalit Ganvir (A-7) 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-5 and A-6 are the nephews of A-1, whereas A-7 is the Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. In the said examination process, under the instructions of A-1, the question papers were leaked/shared to 4 henceforth ‘the PSC’ 5 henceforth ‘the CBI’ 4 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters A-5 and A-6 and thereafter, A-7 shared the said question paper to A-2, who, in turn, provided the same to his son and daughter-in-law i.e. A-3 & A-4, respectively. Thus, A-5, A-6 & A-7 committed the offence. 5. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants (A-5 & A-6) would submit that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated. He would submit that without there being any enquiry the FIR has been registered against these applicants that too under the instructions of the Home Department. According to the applicants, the authorities are acting by adopting pick and choose method. Learned counsel would submit that the PSC advertised for 171 posts and pursuant to the same, A-5 & A-6, who are having the requisite eligibility 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. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the applicants have been arrested without complying with the provisions of Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and the entire action has been taken by the respondent CBI incomplete violation of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. reported in 2022 10 SCC 51. Learned counsel would also submit that the word ‘nephew’ would not come in the definition of the word ‘family’ because on 24/07/2021, the CGPSC amended the Rules. The said decision has 5 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters been taken by the PSC and not by A-1 alone in the capacity of Chairman of the PSC. (c) Learned counsel would submit that even if the statement of Anil Kumar Sonwani, brother of A-1 is taken as it is then also no case is made out against the A-5 and A-6. He would submit that said Anil Kumar Sonwani, neither eye witness nor hearsay witness. Even he did not disclose the fact as to how he has gathered such information. Learned counsel would submit that subsequently, Anil Kumar Sonwani has moved an application before the concerned Court for retraction of his statement. Learned counsel would next submit that nothing has been seized from the A-5 and A-6 related to the crime in question. He would submit that the FIR has been lodged with political motivation. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are fully cooperating the investigating agency. He would submit that A-5 and A-6 are the residents of State of C.G. and having deep roots in the societies, therefore, there is no question being abscond from the trial. He would submit that the trial will take more time for its conclusion and the A-5 and A-6 are in detention since last more than 5 months, therefore, they may be granted bail. 6. (A) Learned counsel appearing for A-7, while adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for A-5 and A-6, would submit that A-7 is a Government employee and posted as Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC, which is apparent from Charge-sheet (Annexure-A/3 of bail application of A/7). He would submit that A-7 has no criminal 6 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters antecedents. According to the learned counsel, prima facie, there is no evidence that A-7 is guilty of the offence as alleged in the subject crime. He would submit that no incriminating material has been recovered from A-7. The only alleged incriminating material against A-7 was the statement made by Anil Singh Sonwani, who is the brother of A-1 and the Secretary of the Gramin Vikas Samiti (GVS), that the question papers were brought under the instructions of A-1 for providing the same to A-5 and A-6, which was further supplied by A-7 to A-2 for onward supply to his son and daughter-in-law i.e. A-3 & A-4. (B) With regard to the allegation of receipt of money of Rs. 45 lacs from A-2 under the CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) head is concerned, learned counsel would submit that A-7 has not played any role in this regard and in fact, the said payment has been made in the account of GVS, the said GVS is under the control of the wife of A-1, whereas the applicant is merely working as Treasurer in GVS. According to the learned counsel, there is no specific allegation against A-7 in respect of the commission of offence under the P.C. Act. (C) Learned counsel would submit that A-7 is a sexagenarian and suffering from several ailments. He would submit that between 2021-22, A-7 suffered heart attacks thrice resultantly, more than several stents have been inserted in his heart, which require intensive medical care, supervision and medication. Thus, the A-7 may be granted bail. 7. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the CBI, per contra, would oppose 7 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters the bail applications. 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. (ii) 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 herein and when the applicants appeared before the investigating agency, after following the due process, they were arrested because of non divulging the true facts to reach the logical conclusion. So far as, the submission of the applicants that other persons who are involved in the crime have 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 (A-2), MCrC No.1631/2025 (A-3 & A-4) and MCrC No.2496/2025 (A-1) have already been considered and rejected by this Court. Thus, the applicants are not entitled for bail and he would pray the bail applications may be rejected. 8. 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. 8 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters 9. From bare perusal of the charge sheet and the statement of brother of A-1 it is crystal clear that under the instructions of A-1, the question paper leaked/shared to A-5 & A-6 and thereafter, A-7 provided the said question to A-2 for onward supply to his son and daughter-in-law i.e. A- 3 & A-4 and on the basis of the same A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-6 got selected to the post of Deputy Collector/Deputy Superintendent of Police. 10. It is reiterated again, as observed while considering the bail applications of other accused persons in the crime in question that 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’. 11. The Investigating Agency issued notices to the applicants under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C and when the applicants appeared before the CBI, wherein, the officials of the CBI informed about the crime to the applicants and after following the due process, they have been arrested. 9 MCRC No.4816 of 2025 & other connected matters Thus, it cannot be said that the arrest is illegal and not in accordance with law. 12. 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 under the instructions of A-1 the question paper leaked/brought for A-5 & A-6, who are nephews of this witness and A-1, and the said question paper also provided by A-7 to A-2, under the instruction of A-1, for onward supply to his son and daughter-in-law (A-3 & A-4), respectively and on the basis of the same, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 got selected for the post of Deputy Collectors/Deputy Superintendent of Police and also particularly considering the fact the bail application of A-1, A-2 and A-3 & A-4 have 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-5, A-6 & A-7). 13. As a sequel, all the bail applications are rejected. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Rahul