1 2025:CGHC:57762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9168 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Goyal S/o Late Shri B.P. Goyal Aged About 60 Years R/o Plot No. X116, Phase-I, Swarnbhoomi, Vidhansabha Road Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) Anti Corruption Branch, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri B.Gopa Kumar, Advocate through Video Conferencing and Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail as he has 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 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Prevention of SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.27 18:09:36 +0530 2 Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof (as per charge sheet). 2. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.1307 of 2025 on merits vide order dated 22/3/2025. 3. In respect of certain illegalities and irregularities committed by the authorities of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission 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 Investigation. In the case, there were seven accused persons. A-1 Taman Singh Sonwani, the then Chairman of the PSC; A-2 Shravan Kumar Goyal (present applicant), 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 & A-6 Sahil Sonwani (both nephews of A-1) and A-7 Lalit Ganvir, Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as far as the present applicant – Shravan Kumar Goyal (A-2) 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 is the Director of Bajrang Power and Ispat Limited and in that capacity, he used to provide funds to the NGOs under the head of Corporate Social Responsibility. According to the prosecution, the wife of A-1 is the Chairperson of one Non 3 Governmental Organisation namely; Gramin Vikas Samiti and to the said GVS, on two different occasions the applicant 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 A-3 & A-4, who are his real son and daughter-in- law, respectively. 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-2 committed the offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant, who is sexagenarian, is in custody since 18.11.2024 i.e. more than a year and is suffering from several ailments. He would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence and even there is no evidence suggesting that the applicant has withheld any information or attempted to obstruct the investigation. He would submit that the charges levelled against the applicant are based on fabricated and incomplete evidence. Learned counsel would submit that the applicant has filed an application (I.A.No.1 of 2025) for taking additional grounds on record. In the said application it has been averred that while arresting the applicant due procedure has not been followed. He would also submit that the son, daughter-in-law of the applicant and other co-accused have already been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4 29.10.2025 passed in SLP (Cr.) No.6438 of 2025. He would pray that the applicant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the CBI would oppose the bail application. He would submit that the applicant acted with mala fide intention and suppressed the correct facts and obtained recommendation of the Bajrang Power Ispat for providing funds to the GVS, whose Chairperson is the wife of A-1. He would submit that in lieu of transfer/payment of Rs. 45 lacs A-2 received question papers of CGPSC 2021 and the same were shared with A-3 and A-4 who are his son and daughter-in-law, who finally got selected to the post of Deputy Collector. Thus, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available before this Court. 8. This Court by order dated 22.03.2025 considered and rejected the first bail application of the applicant in MCRC No. 1307/2025 on merits. It is noteworthy to mention here that a second or subsequent bail application can be filed only if there is a change in the circumstances after rejection of the first bail application. The present application does not show any change in the circumstances whereas, the same has been filed on the ground that his son, daughter-in-law and other co-accused have been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Bare perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 6438/2025 dated 29.10.2025 by which A-3 and other co-accused have been granted bail on the ground that they are only the beneficiaries and 5 they have not been involved directly. Therefore, the applicant herein cannot be permitted to take the advantage of the order passed by the Supreme Court because his case is completely different with the case of the said co-accused persons. 10. As far as the additional grounds raised by the applicant in I.A.No.1 of 2025 regarding illegal arrest is concerned, the same ground, at this juncture, cannot be taken into consideration in a second bail application. 11. In view of the above, the present bail application, is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 12. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is also rejected. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib