1 2026:CGHC:4286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 22-01-2026 Order delivered on 27-01-2026 MCRC No. 10465 of 2025 Taman Singh Sonwani S/o Late Kalyan Singh Sonwani Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Sarbada, Post Madeli, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation CBI, Anticorruption Branch Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... 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 1 henceforth ‘the BNSS’ SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.01.27 16:11:34 +0530 2 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, 1988 (as amended in 2018)3. 2. Previously, the applicant has preferred a First Bail Application bearing MCRC No. 2496/2025, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22/04/2025, 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 applicant herein), 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, Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. For the sake of convenience, the applicant herein is being referred as A-1. 2 henceforth ‘the IPC’ 3 henceforth ‘the PC Act’ 4 henceforth ‘the PSC’ 5 henceforth ‘the CBI’ 3 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as far as the present applicant Taman Singh Sonwani (A-1) is concerned is that during the period 2020-2022 the PSC conducted the State Service Examination. At that time, A-1 was the Chairman of the PSC. The allegations is that he along with other officials of the PSC have gave undue advantage to their respective family members. During the course of investigation, it revealed that A-2 gave an amount of Rs. 45 Lacs under the head of Corporate Social Responsibility6 to the Non-Governmental Organization7 namely Gramin Vikas Samiti8 to which, the wife of A-1 is the Chairperson. In the said process, the question papers of the PSC examination was leaked to the A-2, who in turn forwarded the same to A-3 & A-4. On the basis of the same, A-3 & A-4 were succeeded in the examination and selected for the post of Deputy Collector. The further allegations of the Investigating Agency is that the brother of A-1 is the member of GVS. Even the question papers were also provided to A-5 & A-6 who are nephews of A- 1, who have got selected in the said examination for the post of Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, respectively. Thus, A-1 committed the offence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant (A-1) would submit that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated. He would submit that A-1 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 6 henceforth ‘the CSR’ 7 henceforth ‘NGO’ 8 henceforth ‘GVS’ 4 application, the applicant has sought bail primarily on the ground of detention period i.e. 1 year 2 months 4 days. He would also submit that the investigation in the matter is still ongoing. 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 not yet commenced despite substantial progress in investigation. 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. He would submit that A-1 cunningly replaced the word ‘Family’ in place of ‘Relative’ in the year 2021 itself with the modifying definition of family he ensured deletion of the word ‘Nephew’ and thereafter, he actively participated in the 5 examination process/selection process. As a result of which, A-5 & A-6, who are his nephews have been selected to the post of Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, respectively. He would submit that A-1, being the Chairman of the PSC, is responsible for the crime in question because the officers of the PSC have acted as per the directions of the 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-1 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 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-1) 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 the statement of brother of A-1 namely; Anil Kumar Sonwani, Secretary of GVS, it is quite vivid that the wife, brother and nephew (A-5) of A-1 (the then Chairman of the PSC), 6 were the Chairperson, Secretary and Member, respectively of the NGO i.e. GVS. In the name of GVS, 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. For the said financial help, under the instruction of A-1, 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. 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-1). 10. Accordingly, the present second bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $.Bhilwar/ Gowri