p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.507 of 2026 along with ABLAPL Nos.508 of 2026 and 567 of 2026 Gopal Krushna Das and Ors. (In ABLAPL No.507 of 2026) Anwesh Nayak (In ABLAPL No.508 of 2026) Gobinda Chandra Tripathy (In ABLAPL No.567 of 2026) …. Petitioner (s) Mr. Devasish Panda, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Pitambar Panda, Adv. -versus- Union Of India (CBI) …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Adv. (For CBI) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 04. DATE OF HEARING:05.02.2026 DATE OF ORDER: 13.02.2026 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections CID CB Case No.07/2025 arising out of Golanthara P.S. Case No.447 31.10.2025 Golanthara CBI Case No. RC- 35(A) 2025- CBI, ACB, Bhubaneswar corresponding to SPE No.29/2025 pending in the Court of learned Addl. CJ.M., Bhubaneswar U/s.319(i), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 read with Sec11(1), 12(1) of the Odisha Public Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified p. 2 Examination (Prevention of unfair means) Act- 2024 1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Since the Petitioners in all the above-mentioned ABLAPs pray for pre- arrest bail in same P.S. Case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Golanthara P.S. Case No. 447 dated 30.09.2025 was registered on the basis of information lodged by the SDPO, Berhampur Town, alleging a criminal conspiracy to compromise the Combined Police Service Examination (CPSE), 2024 conducted by the Odisha Public Recruitment Board (OPRB). The offences invoked include provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 11(1) and 12(1) of the Odisha Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. Subsequently, pursuant to State and Central Government notifications, the case was transferred to CBI, ACB, Bhubaneswar and re-registered as RC- 35(A)/2025 corresponding to SPE No. 29/2025. The investigation revealed that approximately 400 candidates were allegedly taken to Digha and Sundarbans in March 2025 and shown leaked question papers in hotels prior to the scheduled examination. The petitioners have approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the said CBI case. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified p. 3 5. The petitioners contend that his name does not appear in the FIR and that he has no connection with the alleged recruitment process, outsourced agencies, or the alleged conspiracy. He submits that he was merely served with a notice under the relevant provisions of the BNSS to appear for questioning as a person acquainted with the facts of the case. He asserts that he is a law-abiding citizen (in one petition described as a businessman, in another as a farmer), is the sole earning member of his family, and has permanent residence within the jurisdiction of the local police station, thereby negating any apprehension of absconding. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and contends that apprehension of arrest would cause irreparable harm to his dignity and livelihood. 6. The CBI opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that investigation has revealed the petitioner’s active involvement as an associate of key conspirators in arranging accommodation and facilitating the display of leaked question papers to candidates at Digha and Sundarbans. It relies on documentary evidence (hotel registers, bills), mobile location data, and statements of candidates and witnesses identifying the petitioner. It is further alleged that he has not cooperated with the investigation, has avoided service of notices, and is absconding. Given the magnitude of the offence, its serious social ramifications affecting public recruitment and public trust, and the requirement of custodial interrogation to unearth the larger conspiracy, the State Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified p. 4 submits that grant of anticipatory bail would impede investigation and risk tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. 7. After hearing both sides and perusing the case materials, the Court is of the opinion that the allegations pertain to a large-scale examination fraud affecting a public recruitment process. This is a grave economic and social offence. The magnitude is evident, hundreds of candidates allegedly benefitted from leaked papers, corroding the legitimacy of a state recruitment exam. Such an offence, if true, erodes public trust in the fairness of selection to public posts. 8. A plethora of judicial precedents make it clear that in cases of such magnitude, the impact of granting anticipatory bail must be carefully assessed. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra1 laid some parameters for granting anticipatory bail and held as under: “122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. 1 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified p. 5 v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Here, the Court finds that the gravity of the crime and its far-reaching ramifications lean against granting pre-arrest bail. Justice demands that the investigators have reasonable freedom to probe such a serious conspiracy. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified p. 6 10. Unlike a situation where an accused is roped in only on suspicion or by malice, here the CBI has presented specific prima facie material linking the petitioners to the crime. Hotel logs and bills allegedly show his direct involvement in arranging the illicit coaching camps for selected candidates. Mobile location tracking places him at the scene, and witnesses have taken his name in statements. 11. At this stage, the Court does not determine guilt or innocence, but this collection of material forms a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner’s involvement. The petitioner’s argument that he is not named in the FIR loses force in light of these subsequent revelations. It is well-settled that non-mention in the FIR is not dispositive if the investigation later uncovers evidence against a person. Criminal conspiracies often unravel progressively; individuals not initially named can emerge as accused as new facts come to light. Here, the investigation’s progress report suggests the petitioner’s role is not a figment of imagination but backed by tangible evidence. Thus, the accusation cannot be called baseless or mala fide at this stage. On the contrary, it appears quite substantive, tilting the balance away from extraordinary relief. 12. The Court has duly considered the petitioners’ personal circumstances, his family dependency, reputation, etc. While the petitioner’s concerns about dignity and livelihood are noted, they cannot override the collective interest in a fair investigation of a crime of this scale. Every accused suffers hardship by arrest; that alone is not a reason to grant anticipatory bail when serious accusations are at hand. Being a sole Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified p. 7 breadwinner or a respectable person does not grant immunity from investigation. At most, these factors would call for humane treatment in custody and a speedy trial, but they do not tilt the balance when weighed against the factors of non-cooperation, prima facie involvement, and investigative needs discussed above. The Court is of the view that the rule of law must prevail uniformly, and even well- placed individuals cannot expect special dispensation if involved in systemic exam fraud. 13. In sum, having evaluated the factual and legal aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with CBI RC-35(A)/2025. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi ) Judge