1 2026:CGHC:4285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 22-01-2026 Order delivered on 27-01-2026 MCRC No. 10287 of 2025 Arti Wasnik W/o Dr. Vikash Bombeshwar Aged About 47 Years R/o E-1/39, Sector-17, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 Applicant Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) Anti Corruption Branch, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Mr. L.N. Malviya, Dr. Sharad Pandey, Mr. Navin Ahuja & Mr. Balraj Sahu, Advocates For Resp/CBI : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Adv. appears on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. C A V Order Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 for grant of bail as she 1 henceforth ‘the BNSS’ RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.27 13:27:03 +0530 2 has 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 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code2 and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. In respect of certain illegalities and irregularities committed by the authorities of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission3 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 Investigation4. Initially, in the said Crime Number, 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) & A-6 Sahil Sonwani (nephew of A-1) and A-7 Lalit Ganvir, Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. During the course of investigation, the applicant herein, who at the relevant time was posted as Controller of Examination of the PSC, has been inculpated. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the period 2020– 2022, the PSC conducted the State Service Examination. At the relevant 2 henceforth ‘the IPC’ 3 henceforth ‘the PSC’ 4 henceforth ‘the CBI’ 3 time, Accused No. 1 was the Chairman of the PSC and is alleged to have extended undue advantage to his family members and favoured candidates. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are the nephews of Accused No. 1, while Accused No. 7 was posted as Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. It is alleged that, under the instructions of Accused No. 1, the question papers were leaked and shared with Accused Nos. 5 and 6, and thereafter Accused No. 7 shared the said question papers with Accused No. 2, who in turn provided the same to his son and daughter-in-law, namely Accused Nos. 3 and 4. The allegation against the applicant/accused Smt. Arti Wasnik is that during the relevant period the applicant was posted as Controller of Examination. It was the official duty of the applicant to maintain strict confidentiality in respect of the examinations conducted by the PSC. However, it is alleged that during the said period, for obtaining illegal direct and indirect benefits, the applicant along with other co-accused breached such confidentiality and provided question papers to certain candidates. It is further alleged that the said candidates, who have already been arrested in the present case, had received the question papers prior to the examination, prepared answers in advance, appeared in the examination, and were thereafter selected to the concerned posts. 4. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. However, on account of some complaints, which have been made with regard to 4 alleged irregularities committed in the said process of State Service Examination conducted by the PSC, two FIRs were lodged at different police stations which was subsequently transferred to the CBI. Learned counsel would submit that the applicant has discharged her duties as per the directions of the Chairman of the PSC who is the competent authority in this regard. He would submit that A-7, the Deputy Controller of Examinations, was entrusted with and looked after the affairs of the examination pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2021. The only allegation against the applicant is that the Publisher made a statement that she has received the question papers. According to the learned counsel, there is no communication, no seizure of any document and even there is not trail of money. He would submit that the applicant herein is not the beneficiary and even she has not made any phone call or messages in this context. Learned counsel would submit that A-7 collected the question papers and the same has been proved in the investigation. From para 16.7.2 of the Final Report dated 16.01.2025, it can be seen that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Chairman of PSC have been mentioned, and in terms of the same the Chairman of the PSC assigns the duties from time to time. According to para 16.7.4, A-7 was assigned the work namely to maintain the account of expenditure made by the Selection/Recruitment Section, Examination Section, Advertisement Section, Confidential Section, to prepare result of State Civil Service, Main Examination and Civil Judge Examination manually. In addition to this, he also attends the work assigned by Chairman, Secretary and controller of examination from time to time. Learned counsel would 5 submit that the allegations leveled against the applicant are contrary to the notification dated 29.06.2021. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and prima facie, there is no evidence that the applicant is guilty of the offence as alleged in the subject crime. He would submit that no incriminating material has been recovered from her; the applicant is a lady having two minor children; and she is in detention since 18.09.2025. Thus, the applicant may be granted bail. 5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the CBI, per contra, would oppose the bail application. He would submit that the applicant herein leaked the question papers without maintaining the secrecy. He would submit that in respect of the applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed. By referring para 16.7.13 of the Final Report, he would submit that in the month of January, 2022 under the instructions of Arun Dwivedi of AKD Printers Pvt. Ltd., one Mahesh Das visited Raipur and handed over the sealed packet containing draft question papers of preliminary examination of CGPSC 2021 to the applicant. Thereafter, he stayed at Raipur two-three days and collected the same sealed packet from the residence of the applicant. At that time, he found one more person who subsequently identified as A-1. Subsequently, on due approval of the applicant and A-1, final print out of both the question papers along with OMR-Sheet was delivered to CGPSC by AKD Printers through Mahesh Das. Thus, it is evident that the applicant and A-1 had knowledge of questions which were supposed to be asked in both the papers. Learned counsel would submit that this Court on an earlier occasions considered 6 and rejected the bail applications of A-1, A-7 and other co-accused persons. Thus, the applicant is also 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. 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’. 8. Having considered the entire fact situation of the case; particularly considering the role attributed to the applicant by the Investigating Agency that the question papers were delivered to the applicant and subsequently the same were collected by Mahesh Das of AKD Printers from the residence of the applicant, where A-1, who is the main accused in the case, was very much present there; and also considering the fact that in the entire examination process they have not maintained the confidentiality and the sanctity, this Court is of the considered opinion 7 that present is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. 9. In the result, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Rahul