Chattisgarh High Court
Shashank Goyal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 8 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16335
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on 03-04-2025
RAHUL Order delivered on 08-4-2025
JHA
Digitally signed by
RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.04.08
13:26:06 +0530
MCRC No. 1631 of 2025
1 - Shashank Goyal S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Goyal Aged About 31 Years R/o
X-116, A-1, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Bhumika Katiyar W/o Shri Shashank Goyal Aged About 31 Years R/o X-
116, A-1, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
Applicant(s)
versus
1 - Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from the Case Information System)
For Applicant : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Shri S.S.
Bhaduri and Shri Harsh Dave, Advocates
For Respondent/CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate through VC
C A V Order
Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 for grant of bail as
they have 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 &
1 henceforth ‘the BNSS’
2
420 of the Indian Penal Code 2 and Sections 7, 7(A) & 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)3.
2. In respect of certain illegalities and irregularities committed by the
authorities of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission 4 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 5. 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) (Applicant No.1
herein); A-4 Ms. Bhumika Katiyar (Daughter-in-law of A-2) (Applicant
No.2 herein); 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 applicants herein are being
referred as A-3 & A-4, respectively.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as far as the present applicants
Shashank Goyal (A-3) and Bhumika Katiyar (A-4) 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, who is
the father of A-3 and father-in-law of A-4, is the Director of Bajrang
Power and Ispat Limited and in that capacity, he used to provide funds to
2 henceforth ‘the IPC‘
3 henceforth ‘the PC Act‘
4 henceforth ‘the PSC’
5 henceforth ‘the CBI’
3
the NGOs under the head of Corporate Social Responsibility 6. According
to the prosecution, the wife of A-1 is the Chairperson of one Non-
Governmental Organization7 namely; Gramin Vikas Samiti 8 and to the
said GVS, on two different occasions, A-2 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
the present applicants i.e. A-3 & A-4, who are the son and daughter-in-
law, respectively of A-2. 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-3 & A-4 committed the offence.
4. (a) Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants (A-3 & A-4)
would submit that the applicants are innocent persons and have been
falsely implicated. He would submit that the applicants belong to a
business family and have good reputation in the society and they have no
concern with the affairs of the PSC. He would submit that A-3 & A-4 are
brilliant and duly qualified persons and as such there is no occasion for
them to take undue advantage of alleged leaked question papers of the
PSC. He submits that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, A-2
rendered financial assistance to the GVS, which is a NGO under the
head of CSR. In fact, A-3 & A-4 have not at all concerned with the funds
6 henceforth ‘the CSR’
7 henceforth ‘NGO’
8 henceforth ‘GVS’
4
provided by the A-2 to GVS because the said transactions have allegedly
been made as per the provisions of the CSR. According to the learned
counsel, the PSC advertised for 171 posts and pursuant to the same, A-3
& A-4, who are having the requisite eligiblity criteria applied and
participated in the selection process. However, on account of some
complaints, which have been made with regard to alleged irregularities
committed in the said recruitment process, two FIRs were lodged at
different police stations which was subsequently transferred to the CBI.
In the said crime, A-2, who is the father and father-in-law of A-3 & A-4,
has been implicated alleging that he siphoned the funds to the family
members of A-1 for obtaining questions papers before the examination
and in turn the same has been provided to A-3 & A-4.
(b) Learned counsel would submit that the financial assistance
rendered by the company of A-2 under the head of CSR to GVS, as per
the statute, has been connected with the examination conducted by the
PSC. Learned counsel would next submit that from the statement of
Arun Kumar Dwivedi who has printed question papers of the
preliminary and final examinations at Kolkata (West Bengal) it is crystal
clear that they sent the question papers to the PSC directly and handed
over to Ms Arti Washnik, Controller of the Examination, PSC, who has
not been made as accused. According to the learned senior counsel,
there is no memorandum of A-1 & A-7. He would submit that in the
present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed on 16/01/2025 and
the conclusion of the trial will take a long time for its conclusion as there
were several witnesses. The applicants are in jail since 12/01/2025 and
5
A-4 is suffering from sever ailments and taking the treatment regularly.
Learned counsel would submit that A-3 is a Govt. servant and without
obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution, he has been arrested.
According to the learned counsel, the applicants are fully cooperating the
investigating agency.
(c) Leaned counsel would submit that at the time of arrest, no
intimation regarding reason of arrest was provided to the applicants,
hence, the provisions of Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C. has not been
complied with in its true perspective. Further, there is no criminal
antecedents against them. He would pray that the applicants may be
enlarged on bail.
5. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the CBI, per contra, would oppose
the bail application. He would submit that the brother of A-1 namely;
Anil Kumar Sonwani, who is the Secretary of GVS, has categorically
stated that the question papers brought for A-5 & A-6 (nephews of this
witness and A-1), were provided by A-7, under the instruction of A-1, to
A-2 for onward sharing of the same to A-3 & A-4, applicants herein.
The said witness categorically accepted receipt of payment of Rs.20.00
lacs and Rs.25.00 lacs on 02/03/2022 & 18/05/2022, respectively under
the CSR head from Barjang Ispat Limited.
(b) Learned counsel would further submit that the notice as required
under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C has been issued to the applicants on two
occasions, however, they failed to appear before the Authorities and not
cooperating the Investigating Agency. He would submit that on
6
12/01/2025, the applicants appeared in the CBI office and for non
compliance of the provisions of Setion 41 A, they were arrested because
of non divulging the true facts to reach the logical conclusion. With
regard to obtaining sanction for prosecution is concerned, by referring to
Section 197 of the Cr.P.C and Section 19 (1) of the PC Act would submit
that in the case in hand, the sanction is not required to be obtained as the
applicants have not implicated in the case while acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of the official duty. So far as, the submission of the
applicants that the controller of the examination has not been made as
accused in the case is concerned, learned counsel would submit that all
the persons/ authorities who are allegedly involved in the crime in
question, are under the radar of the Investigating Agency and they
would take appropriate steps against the culprits in accordance with law,
as the charge-sheet itself shows that the investigation regarding some of
the persons who are allegedly involved in the subject crime is still going
on. He would submit that the bail application bearing no. MCRC No.
1307/2025 of father and father-in-law of A-3 & A-4, respectively, i.e. A-
2 has been considered and rejected by this Court vide order dated
22/03/2025. Thus, the applicants are 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. 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
A-2 has close links with some high and mighty officials of the PSC, as
7
the wife, brother and nephew (A-5) of A-1 (the then Chairman of the
PSC), were the Chairperson, Secretary and Member, respectively of the
NGO i.e. GVS. In the name of GVS, A-2 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 and on the basis of the same he succeeded in
obtaining question papers 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.
8. 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’.
9. As far as the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the
Cr.P.C before prosecuting A-3 is concerned, it is noteworthy to mention
here that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public
servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to
the discharge of his or her official duty. The guiding principle governing
the necessity of prior sanction stands well crystallized by the Supreme
8
Court in a catena of decisions. The pivotal inquiry is whether the
impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If
the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the
official functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is
obviated. Thus, before taking action against A-3, who is a Government
servant and working as Sub Registrar, no sanction is required to
prosecute him, as the present crime is relating to leakage of question
paper of the PSC examination. Since no reasonable link exists between
the act complained of and the official duties of A-3, therefore, the
protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC is not attracted.
10. The Investigating Agency issued notices to the applicants under Section
41 A of the Cr.P.C on two occasions and when they failed, again notice
was issued and pursuant to the same, the applicants appeared before the
Agency on 12/01/2025, wherein, the officials of the CBI informed about
the crime to the applicants and after following the due process, they have
been arrested. Thus, it cannot be said that the arrest is illegal and not in
accordance with law.
11. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the seriousness of allegations levelled against
the applicants and also considering the statement of brother of A-1
namely; Anil Kumar Sonwani, who categorically stated that the question
paper leaked for A-5 & A-6, who are nephews of this witness and A-1,
and the said question papers also provided to A-2 by A-7, under the
instruction of A-1, for onward supply to A-3 & A-4, who are son and
daughter-in-law of A-2, respectively and on the basis of the same the
9
couple got selected for the post of Deputy Collectors and also
particularly considering the fact the bail application of A-2 has already
been rejected, and further 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
applicants (A-3 & A-4).
12. As a sequel, the present bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Gowri/
Rahul