1 2026:CGHC:4287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 22-01-2026 Order delivered on 27-01-2026 MCRC No. 10467 of 2025 Lalit Ganvir aged about 50 Years S/o Late Sh. Arjun Lal Ganvir, Ward No.-13, Teachers Colony, Station Para, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation CBI, Anticorruption Branch Raipur, District Raipur --- Respondent For Applicant : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/ CBI : Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) C A V Order 1. The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 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 Code2 and Sections 7, 7(A) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19883. 1 henceforth ‘the BNSS’ 2 henceforth ‘the IPC’ 3 henceforth ‘the PC Act’ AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.27 13:39:32 +0530 2 2. Previously, the applicant has preferred a First Bail Application bearing MCRC No. 4826/2025 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22/07/2025, whereby the prayer made by the applicant for enlargement on bail was declined. 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 & A-6 Sahil Sonwani (both nephews of A-1) and A-7 Lalit Ganvir (applicant hererin), Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. For the sake of convenience, the applicant herein is being referred as A-7. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as far as the present applicant 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 4 henceforth ‘the PSC’ 5 henceforth ‘the CBI’ 3 said examination process, under the instructions of A-1, the question papers were leaked/shared to 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-7 committed the offence. 5. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant (A-7) would submit that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated. He would submit that A-7 is not involved in the setting of question papers and even he has no role to play in the examination process. In the present bail application, the applicant has sought bail primarily on the ground of detention period. He would also submit that the investigation in the matter is still going on. According to the applicant, four co-accused have already been granted bail by the Apex Court and three co-accused have been released on bail by the trial Court, and as such the same benefit may be extended to him. Learned counsel would further submit that in the present case, the first charge-sheet was filed on 09/07/2025 and the second charge-sheet was filed on 31/12/2025. He would submit that earlier 41 witnesses and 84 documents had been cited upon in support of the prosecution case, and presently, the number of witnesses has increased to 105 while the documents remain 84. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 12 SCC 660 and would submit that the principles laid down in the said judgment are squarely applicable to the present case, as the applicant has been in custody for a considerable period and the trial has 4 not yet commenced despite substantial progress in investigation. (b) 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. Thus, the applicant may be released on bail. 6. (A) Learned counsel appearing for the CBI, per contra, would oppose the bail application. He would submit that A-1 is the kingpin who perpetrated for the commission of this grave offence which has pinched the sentiments of lakhs of aspirants. A-7 has acted as per the whims and fancies of A-1. In fact, A-7 who is the Deputy Controller of the PSC as also the member of the GVS has provided the question paper to A-2 on the instructions of A-1 for onward sharing to A-3 & A-4. (B) Learned counsel would submit that the first bail application of A-7 has been considered by this Court and by a detailed and reasoned order dismissed the same. He would submit that the bail has been granted to the co-accused holding that they were only the beneficiaries and they were not involved directly whereas the case of the applicant herein is completely different with the case of said co-accused persons. Merely on 5 the ground of detention period, the bail cannot be granted in such a serious crime. He would also submit that in respect of the applicant herein, the investigation has already been completed and further investigation in respect of remaining 10 candidates is in progress. Thus, the applicant (A-7) is not entitled for bail and he would pray that the bail application may be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. From bare perusal of the charge sheet and from the material available on record, it is evident that under the instructions of A-1, who is the Chairman of the PSC, A-7 leaked the question papers to A-2 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. The first bail application of the applicant herein has already been rejected on merit. 9. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the seriousness of allegations levelled against the applicant and also 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 applicant (A-7). 10. Accordingly, the present second bail application is hereby rejected. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/Amardeep