Allahabad High Court
Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ... on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:64856
[A.F.R.]
(1) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7025 of 2025
Applicant :- Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Suhaib Ashraf
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
(2) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7700 of 2025
Applicant :- Ramayan
Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent Of Police A.C.B. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar,Akansha Pathak,Manoj Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
(3) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6553 of 2025
Applicant :- Ajit Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Thru. Branch Head Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra,Shivam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
(4) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7067 of 2025
Applicant :- Niraj Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
(5) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6155 of 2025
Applicant :- Raj Narayan Singh Yadav @ R.N.S. Yadav
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Superintendent Of Police A.C.B. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
(6) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6252 of 2025
Applicant :- Surjeet Singh
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation / Anti -Corruption Bureau Naval Kishore Road Hazratganj Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
(7) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7244 of 2025
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Ofinvestigation Thru. Cbi/ Acb
Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Bisaria
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad,Pranjal Krishna
(8) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7518 of 2025
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Investigation Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Pranjal Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aakash Prasad
Reserved on:- 20.08.2025
Delivered on:- 16.10.2025
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned counsel for the applicant in Bail Application Nos. 7025/2025 and 7244/2025 and Sri Purnendu Chakravarty in Bail Application Nos. 7518/2025 and 6252/2025, Sri Pranshu Agrawal in Bail Application No. 6155/2025, Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta in Bail Application no. 7067/2025, Sri Satendra Kumar Singh and Sri Shivam in Bail Application 6553/2025, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra and Sri Vinay Kumar in Bail Application No. 7700/2025 and Sri Aakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation assisted by Shri Shashwat Dwivedi, Advocate.
2. The aforesaid case arises out of a First Information Report bearing no. RC0062025A0007 dated 03.03.2025 registered at CBI/ACB under Section 61(2) r/w 318(3) and 316(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (which will hereinafter be referred to as BNS) read with Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (which will hereinafter be referred to as PC Act) against 9 persons including the applicants in Bail Application Nos. 7025/2025, 6553/2025, 7067/2025, 6155/2025 and not including the applicants in Bail Application nos. 7700/2025, 6252/2025, 7244/2025 and 7518/2025 stating that the accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy in connivance with certain appearing candidates to leak the question paper for the departmental examination for the post of Chief Loco Inspector (CLI) in East Central Railways (ECR), Deen Dayal Upadhyaya (DDA) Nagar in exchange of illegal gratification, which examination was proposed to be conducted on 04.03.2025.
3. The CBI apprehended accused persons Niraj Kumar Verma, Ajit Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar Mishra in the evening of 03.03.2025 while they were together. The CBI team raided three different locations - (1) the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti, Loco Pilot Goods, DDU, ECR, (2) Raj Marriage Lawn, DDU and (3) Residence of Rakesh Kumar, Loco Pilot Passenger, DDU, ECR, and found that several candidates were memorizing the leaked questions with answers which tallied with the questions available in the Test Booklet / Question Paper, on the basis of which an examination was to be held on 04.03.2025. The CBI arrested 17 candidates from the three locations. Rs.1.14 crores cash and documents containing the leaked questions with answers, as well as the Test Booklet / Question Paper on which the exam was supposed to be held on 04.03.2025 were recovered and seized by the CBI during the investigation.
4. After conducting investigation, the CBI has filed a charge-sheet against 26 persons.
5. Sushant Parashar - the applicant in Bail Application No. 7025 of 2025 and Surjeet Singh the applicant in Bail Application No.6252 of 2025, have been charge-sheeted for offences under Section 61(2) read with 112, 316(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7, 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and substantive offences under Sections 112 and 316 (5) of BNS and Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988. Niraj Kumar Verma - the applicant in 7067 of 2025 and Sanjay Kumar Mishra - the applicant in 7518 of 2025, have been charge-sheeted for offences under Section 61(2) read with 112, 316(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7, 7A & 8 of the P.C. Act and substantive offences under section 112 of BNS and Section 7 and 7A of P.C. Act. Raj Narayan Singh Yadav - the applicant in Bail Application No. 6155 of 2025 and Ajit Kumar Singh - the applicant in Bail Application No. 6553 of 2025, have been charge-sheeted for offences under Section 61(2) read with 112, 316(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7, 7A & 8 of P.C. Act and substantive offences under Section 112 of BNS and Section 7 of P.C. Act. Ramayan - the applicant in Bail Application No. 7700 of 2025, has been charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 61(2) read with 112, 316(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7, 7A & 8 of P.C. Act and substantive offences under Section 112 of BNS and Rakesh Kumar - the applicant in Bail Application No. 7244 of 2025, has been charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 61(2) read with 112, 316(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7, 7A & 8 of P.C.Act and substantive offences under Section 112 of BNS and Section 8 of P.C. Act.
6. As all of the bail applications arise out of the same FIR and similar questions are involved in all the matters, the bail applications are being decided by this common order.
The Prosecution Case: -
7. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar - the applicant in Bail Application No. 7025 of 2025, was involved in the criminal conspiracy with various other officers of Railways, to favour a number of candidates appearing in the departmental exam by obtaining illegal gratification from them. Sushant Parashar and Indu Prakash had set the question paper and they had conspired with certain other officers of the Railways, viz. Niraj Kumar Verma, R. N. S. Yadav, Ajit Singh, Nityanand Yadav, Krishnan Yadav and Suryanath to extend undue benefit to various candidates by leaking question paper of the exam to be held on 04.03.2025 in exchange of bribe. Sushant Parashar had handed over a copy of the question paper in the English language in his own handwriting on 03.03.2025 to Anish Kumar who was assisting him in preparing the question paper. Anish Kumar in turn handed over the paper to Niraj Kumar Verma for circulation amongst the prospective candidates from whom they had collected bribes.
8. The allegations leveled in the FIR were verified by placing the phones of some of the suspect officials of ECR under technical surveillance with the approval of the Competent Authority. There is a recording of phone call between N. K. Verma and Anish Kumar to support these allegations.
9. Rs. 4,35,000/- cash has been recovered from the residence of Sushant Parashar, for which he could not give any plausible explanation. The original document in English and in the handwriting of Sushant Parashar was recovered and seized from the residence of Niraj Kumar Verma on 03.03.2025.
10. Niraj Kumar Verma- the applicant in Bail Application No. 7067 of 2025, had received the leaked question paper in the English language on 03.03.2025 for further circulation among the prospective candidates from whom bribe had been received. The original paper prepared by Sushant Parashar was recovered from the residence of Niraj Kumar Verma on 03.03.2025. Niraj Kumar Verma took Rs.20,00,000/- bribe through co accused Avinash Kumar from four Gaya based candidates, viz., Jitendra Kumar, Nagendra Kumar Verma, Sadhu Saran Prasad and Azad Kumar, and the money was recovered from his residence,.
11. The call recordings between two candidates Prem Nath Yadav and Niraj Kumar Verma established that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, another accused Rakesh Kumar had translated the question paper and the answers to Hindi language and had got them photocopied and he had handed over the photocopies to Niraj Kumar Verma.
12. On the instructions of Niraj Kumar Verma, a candidate Dinesh Kumar Ram had gone to the residence of Rakesh Kumar for memorizing the questions and the answers.
13. Niraj Kumar Verma had arranged for accommodating some candidates at the residence of co accused Deepak Prakash Jyoti where they were to be supplied the leaked question paper along with answers and they were to be facilitated in memorizing the same.
14. Niraj Kumar Verma had provided Hindi translated copies of the question paper to Deepak Prakash Jyoti and R. N. S. Yadav for being distributed at two spots (1) Residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti and (2) Raj Marriage Lawn. Copies of the leaked questions with answers seized from the candidates at the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti and Raj Marriage Lawn are the photocopies of the original Hindi translation of the leaked questions seized from the residence of Rakesh Kumar.
15. Niraj Kumar Verma had struck out 08 questions in the photocopies of the leaked questions with answers thereby rendering them illegible. Hence, only 85 questions were legible in the photocopies. This was done in order to mask their unlawful activity by preventing the candidates from securing full or very high marks which would otherwise raise a suspicion of the unfair means adopted in the examination.
16. Raj Narayan Singh Yadav the applicant in Bail Application No. 6155 of 2025, was posted as Loco Pilot (Goods) at DDU Railway Division. He was a junior officer involved in the criminal conspiracy of leaking the CLI question paper. The FIR states that he, along with co accused Ajit Singh (Chief Loco Inspector, DDU) - the applicant in Bail Application No. 6553 of 2025, was supposed to gather the prospective candidates, who had paid bribes, at two different locations at DDU Nagar, UP on 03.03.2025 and disclose the question paper to them in order to prepare them for the examination.
17. The charge-sheet stated that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he had received the question paper and answers from co accused Niraj Kumar Verma and had distributed the same amongst the accused candidates at Raj Marriage Lawn and he was found facilitating and helping the said accused candidates in memorizing the same. Another accused Ramayan had obtained undue advantage/bribe amounting to Rs. 6.5 lakhs on behalf of Raj Narayan Singh Yadav from Santosh Kumar and Rs. 4.5 lakhs from Manoj Kumar Paswan (both of whom were candidates appearing For the CLI Exam).
18. Surjeet Singh the applicant in Bail Application No. 6252 of 2025, was posted as Sr. DPO (Personnel) at DDU Railway Division. He was not named in the FIR, but he has been made an accused in the charge-sheet, which attributes to him the role of initiating the process of the CLI exam. He had agreed to help one Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha (who was a candidate supposed to appear for the CLI exam) in clearing the Departmental Promotional Exam for the post of CLI in lieu of undue advantage / bribe of Rs.7 lakhs and the said demand was conveyed by him to Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha through co accused Sanjay Kumar Mishra, who was Chief OS under him. Another accused Krishna Dev Yadav, who was a Technician-I at DDU, ECR, has disclosed this fact in his statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The demand and receipt of the aforesaid amount was done through co accused Sanjay Kumar Mishra from Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha in the presence of Krishna Dev Yadav. Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha was apprehended alongwith other accused candidates from Raj Marriage Lawn, PL DDU Nagar, UP while memorizing from the leaked questions and answers. A recovery of cash amount of Rs. 17,54,200/- was made from the residence of Surjeet Singh.
19. Sanjay Kumar Mishra the applicant in Bail Application No. 7518 of 2025, was posted as Chief Office Superintendent at DDU Railway Division. He was apprehended by the CBI team on 03.03.2025 along with co accused Ajit Kumar Singh and Niraj Kumar Verma. He had arranged for accommodating the prospective candidates at Raj Marriage Lawn for the purpose of being supplied with question paper for the CLI exam, where these candidates were later arrested by CBI. He had led the accused candidates to Raj Marriage Lawn where co-accused Raj Narayan Singh Yadav supplied the said candidates with the leaked questions with answers and facilitated them in memorizing the same. Sanjay Kumar Mishra had demanded and received undue advantage/bribe amounting to Rs.7 lakhs from a candidate Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha, Loco Pilot, through Krishna Dev Yadav, Technician-I, DDU, ECR for helping the said candidate in clearing the CLI exam. Krishna Dev Yadav made this disclosure in his statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. Sanjay Kumar Mishra had demanded and received undue advantage/bribe from another accused candidate Sumit Kumar. Several candidates have disclosed that they had been provided with the leaked questions and answers after they had paid bribe or had agreed to pay bribe to accused Sanjay Kumar Mishra. Rs.43 lakhs cash was seized from the residence of accused Sanjay Kumar Mishra for which he could not offer any satisfactory explanation. The charge-sheet states that another co accused Suryanath revealed that he had kept Rs.5.50 lakhs ready (which was also recovered from his residence) for paying to Sanjay Kumar Mishra later.
20. Ajit Kumar Singh the applicant in Bail Application No. 6553 of 2025, was posted as Chief Loco Inspector at the DDU Railway Division. The charge-sheet stated that on 02.03.2025, a candidate had offered the bribe amount to him for his selection and Ajit Kumar Singh had agreed to receive the amount on 03.03.2025. He along with co accused R.N.S. Yadav was supposed to gather the prospective candidates who had paid bribes, at two different locations at DDU Nagar, UP on 03.03.2025 to disclose to them the question paper for the CLI exam so that they could be well prepared for it. He was apprehended with co accused persons Niraj Kumar Verma and Sanjay Kumar Mishra. Rs.12,92,500/- were recovered from his residence and he had obtained this amount from the accused candidates Prashant Kishore Singh and Gaurav Kumar Pathak. The aforesaid two candidates were apprehended at the residence of co accused Deepak Prakash Jyoti in the evening of 03.03.3025 while memorizing from the copies of leaked questions with answers.
21. Rakesh Kumar the Applicant in Bail Application No. 7244 of 2025, and another accused Dinesh Kumar Ram, were candidates for the CLI exam. The residence of Rakesh Kumar was also raided where several both found memorizing the leaked question paper which tallied with the official question paper. He, along with Ajit Kumar Singh, had translated the questions and the answers from English to Hindi in their own handwriting at the instance of Niraj Kumar Verma. He kept the original document containing 93 questions with answers in Hindi with himself. The original paper in the handwriting of Sushant Parashar was recovered from his residence on the basis of disclosure made by Niraj Kumar Verma. Another accused candidate Dinesh Kumar Ram was found in his company at his residence. The recordings of intercepted phone calls containing conversations of accused Rakesh Kumar and accused Dinesh Kumar Ram with accused Niraj Kumar Verma established that Dinesh Kumar Ram had gone to the residence of Rakesh Kumar as per instruction of Niraj Kumar Verma for memorizing the leaked questions and answers. 93 solved questions found in such documents seized from the residence of Rakesh Kumar tally with the questions available in the actual Test Booklet/Question Paper on which the CLI exam was supposed to be held on 04.03.2025. The candidates were supposed to attempt only 100 questions out of the total 110 questions in the actual Test Booklet / Question Paper. Thus, Investigation has established that Rakesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar Ram had access to 93 questions out of the 100 questions that they were required to attempt during the exam.
22. Binod Kumar Singh, Jitendra Kumar, Prashant Kishore Singh and Gaurav Kumar Pathak, Nagendra Kumar, Sadhu Saran Prasad, Azad Kumar, Shiv Nath Kumar, Mithilesh Kumar and Sumit All the aforesaid accused persons were prospective candidates for the CLI exam to be held on 04.03.2025. They were apprehended at different spots on 03.03.2025 while memorizing the question paper that was leaked as the result of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy. They had allegedly been involved in offering undue benefit/bribe in exchange of the getting the question paper leaked in order to endure their selection in the CLI exam.
23. Aneesh Kumar, was posted as Assisting Loco Pilot at DDU, Railway Division. He had assisted Sushant Parashar in preparing the question paper of the CLI exam and Sushant Parashar had handed over a copy of the question paper in English to him on 03.03.2025. He had handed it over to co accused Niraj Kumar Verma for circulation among the prospective candidates from whom they had collected bribes. He alongwith co-accused Rakesh Kumar, Loco Pilot, DDU, ECR (who was also a candidate of CLI exam), translated the said questions and answers from English to Hindi language in their own handwriting at the instance of accused Niraj Kumar Verma.
24. Suryanath was posted as Loco pilot at DDU Railway Division and he was among one of the co accused with whom money collected as bribe during the conspiracy was stashed along with other co accused persons Niraj Kumar Verma, Nityanand Yadav, Krishnan Yadav. He was himself a candidate and the charge-sheet also attributed the role of collecting Rs 1.5 lakh from another candidate to him. This was done by him on behalf of other officers on 01.03.2025. He was apprehended while memorizing the paper on 03.03.2025. Rs 5.50 lakh were recovered from his residence which he had allegedly kept for paying to co accused Sanjay Kumar Mishra later.
25. CBI raided the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti along with other spots. Several candidates were found memorising the leaked question paper at his residence. Acting in connivance with Niraj Kumar Verma, Deepak Prakash Jyoti had arranged for accommodating certain candidates at his residence where they were to be supplied with the leaked question paper. Niraj Kumar Verma supplied him and co accused RNS Yadav with Hindi translated copies of the question paper to distribute the same to candidates at his residence and at Raj Marriage Lawn respectively on 03.03.2025. Seven accused candidates, viz., Binod Kumar Singh, Jitendra Kumar, Prashant Kishore Singh, Gaurav Kumar Pathak, Nagendra Kumar Verma, Sadhu Saran Prasad and Azad Kumar, were apprehended from Deepak Prakash Jyotis residence while memorising the leaked question paper with answers on 03.03.2025. The copies of the leaked question paper in Hindi along with answers and the documents on which the accused candidates were practicing were also seized from his residence. He was instrumental in providing space at his residence for the distribution of the leaked paper and further also played a role in distributing the question paper which had been handed over to him by Niraj Kumar Verma.
26. The oral as well as documentary evidences, including the recordings of intercepted phone calls, collected during Investigation clearly establish that these accused candidates had given or promised to give undue advantage/ bribe in lieu of obtaining the leaked questions with answers and accused Deepak Prakash Jyoti had obtained undue advantage/bribe from such candidates on behalf of accused Niraj Kumar Verma. Further, it is also established from the recordings of intercepted phone calls containing conversation of accused Niraj Kumar Verma and accused Deepak Prakash Jyoti that accused candidate Binod Kumar Singh had delivered undue advantage / bribe to Deepak Prakash Jyoti.
27. Copies of leaked questions with answers seized from the candidates at the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti and Raj Marriage Lawn are the photocopies of the original Hindi translation of the leaked questions (containing 93 questions with answers) seized from the residence of accused candidate Rakesh Kumar. Niraj Kumar Verma had stricken out 08 questions in these photocopies of the leaked questions with answers thereby rendering them illegible. Hence, only 85 questions were legible in such photocopies. Thus, the said accused candidates at the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti and Raj Marriage Lawn were given access to 85 questions with answers out of the mandatory 100 questions to be attempted in lieu of undue advantage/ bribe. Further, the recordings of intercepted phone calls reveal accused Niraj Kumar Verma telling co-accused Ajit Kumar Singh that 85% questions were being provided. Investigation has also established that 08 questions striked out/ blacked out in the photocopy of solved question paper provided to accused candidates at the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti are different than the 08 questions striked out/blacked out in the photocopy of solved question paper provided to accused candidates at Raj Marriage Lawn. It is evident that this has been done to prevent the accused candidates from scoring full marks or extremely high marks in the departmental exam. This shows the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons who were taking precautions to avoid any suspicion regarding the fairness in conduction of examination.
Submissions on behalf of the accused persons: -
28. Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned counsel for the applicant-Sushant Parashar has submitted that the said applicants had only been tasked with preparing question paper for the internal departmental examination for the post of Chief Loco Inspector (CLI) proposed to be held 04.05.2025 and were not in possession of the the question paper itself. The question paper had not been created till the time of arrest of Sushant Parashar on 03.03.2025 and the same was not in existence till the time of his arrest.
29. Sri Krishna has submitted that offence under Sections 112 of BNS is not made out against Sushant Parashar as the word Public Examination defined in Section 2(k) of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 would not include the internal examination for the post of CLI. He has next submitted that essential requirement for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) BNS is that the accused must have been either entrusted with any property or any dominion over the property and the term property' does not include the power to draft/ create a question paper. He has further submitted that there is no allegation that Sushant Parashar had demanded or accepted any bribe and no money has been recovered from him.
30. The learned counsel for Sushant Parashar has further submitted that the prosecution case against this accused is based on a note allegedly written in his handwriting and certain intercepted phone calls between other accused persons. He has submitted that till date no opinion of handwriting expert of CFSL and no opinion regarding voice recognition of the intercepted calls is available so as to substantiate the allegations and the prosecution has levelled a bald allegation in the charge-sheet that the handwriting and voice of the accused persons has been identified in the presence of independent witnesses. He has submitted that no question paper has been recovered from the applicant.
31. Sri Pranjal Krishna has further submitted that the examination in question is an open book examination in the sense that the question paper containing 110 questions was supposed to be made from a question bank containing 1300 questions which was available in the public domain on the website of Eastern Central Railway to facilitate the prospective examinees for preparation of the examination. He has submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet there is no possibility of tampering with investigation in a trap case like the present one as entire case is based on the complaint and the trap memorandum.
32. The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 105 of the BNSS, which provide that the process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing, including preparation of list of articles seized and signing of list of the witnesses shall be recorded through any audio video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The memorandum prepared by the CBI reflects part of the proceedings recorded by the CBI and the entire proceedings were not recorded in terms of Section 105 BNSS. The learned counsel for Sushant Parashar has submitted that recovery has been made from other accused persons and the same cannot be connected to Sushant Parashar.
33. Further submission of Sri. Pranjal Krishna is that the trial in the present case would take very long time to conclude considering that the charge-sheet mentions more than 70 prosecution witnesses and thousands of pages of documentary evidence. Even prosecution sanction has not been accorded till date and commencement of trial is also bound to take time.
34. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another: (2024) 9 SCC 813, Sri. Pranjal Krishna has submitted that if the prosecuting agency has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for release of the applicant on bail on the ground that the offence is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the offence and it is not contingent upon the period of incarceration.
35. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
18. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be."
36. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that 16 out of 26 accused persons, namely, Binod Kumar Singh, Dinesh Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Pathak, Jitendra Kumar, Kanhaiya Kumar, Manoj Kumar Paswan, Mithilesh Kumar, Nagendra Kumar Verma, Prashant Kishore Singh, Sadhu Sharan Prasad, Sumit Kumar and Surya Nath have already been granted bail by this Court. None of the applicants have any previous criminal history.
37. All other learned Counsel for the other applicants have adopted the submissions of Sri. Pranjal Krishna and they have made some additional submissions.
38. Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned counsel for Surjeet Singh the applicant in Bail Application No.6252 of 2025 and Sanjay Kumar Mishra the applicant in Bail Application No.6252 of 2025, has submitted that the source information was in respect of Sushant Parashar and Indu Prakash. The allegation against Surjeet Singh is that the Departmental Examination was initiated from the office where applicant was posted as Senior Divisional Personnel Officer and he has been charge-sheeted for criminal conspiracy for the alleged offences. There is no allegation that Surjeet Singh had handed over or leaked the question paper and he had not been entrusted with any dominion over property as per the charge-sheet and, therefore, the offence under Section 316(5) BNS is not made out against him. Rest of the offences carry the maximum sentence of imprisonment upto seven years.
39. Surjeet Singh has explained the amount of Rs. 17,54,200/- recovered from his house in paragraph no. 21 to 25 of the bail application filed on his behalf, claiming that the amount belongs to his mother-in-law, who runs an MSME Unit registered with government.
40. The allegation against Sanjay Kumar Mishra is that he had orally requested one Istiyak Ahmed (owner of Raj Marriage Lawn) to provide accommodation to any person who comes for the examination and thus he made arrangements for accommodating some accused candidates at Raj Marriage Lawn. He had not booked or made arrangements for any particular name or number of candidates. The charge-sheet further states that Sanjay Kumar Mishra, along with Ajit Kumar Singh and Niraj Kumar Verma, had led the CBI team to the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti where 7 candidates were found, whereas Sanjay Kumar Mishra contends that after apprehending him, CBI had forcibly taken him to the place.
41. There are allegations of transactions between Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha through Krishna Dev Yadav. Jai Prakash Singh has been granted bail in Bail Application No. 7062 of 2025 and Krishna Dev Yadav has been made an approver. There is no independent evidence to prove the alleged transaction.
42. Sanjay Kumar Mishra is alleged to have agreed to help a candidate namely Jai Prakash Singh Kushwaha in clearing the departmental promotional examination for the post of CLI and this allegation has been made on the basis of statement of accused turned approver Krishna Dev Yadav.
43. The amount recovered from the house of Sanjay Kumar Mishra is claimed to be belonging to his brother Ashok Kumar Mishra who resides at the same house and deals in purchase and sale of properties. Ashok Kumar Mishra filed a release application of seized amount with all necessary documents like bank statement, agreement for sale documents etc., although the same has been rejected.
44. Surjeet Singh and Sanjay Kumar Mishra are in judicial custody since 04.03.2025, CBI has recorded their statements in jail without seeking permission for custody remand.
45. Sri. Chakravarty has submited that the custodial statements of accused persons are not admissible as evidence in the trial. The mobile phones of Surjeet Singh and Sanjay Kumar Mishra have not been intercepted and their call recording data has not been detailed in the charge-sheet. They are not connected with the examination process and they did not have access to the question papers framed. There is no allegation that money had been taken taken for Surjeet Singh.
46. Indu Prakash and Nityanand Yadav, against whom specific allegation for corruption and bribe has been leveled in the FIR, have not been charge-sheeted for want of sufficient evidence. Krishna Dev Yadav and Avinash Kumar, who were named in the FIR as accused persons, have been made approver/witness and they have been granted pardon. Jai Prakash Singh has been granted bail in Bail Application No. 7062 of 2025.
47. Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2018) 3 SCC 22, Satender Kumar Antil versus CBI: (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Baliya v. State of M.P.: (2012) 9 SCC 696.
48. Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for Ramayan - the applicant in Bail Application No.7700 of 2025, has submitted that Ramayan is not named in the FIR, no incriminating material such as leaked question paper or answers have been recovered from his possession. Merely Rs.5,500/- was seized at the time of his arrest, as is reflected from the arrest-cum-personal search memo. The remaining recovery has been made from the house of this accused person and he has explained that this money was lawfully sourced for establishing the business of his son.
49. Sri. Mishra has submitted that the allegation against Ramayan is that he has collected bribe on behalf of co-accused Raj Narayan Singh Yadav and there is no allegation of demand of bribe made by Ramayan. Ramayan has already retired from the post of Chief Loco Inspector in the month of November 2023 and he had no role or authority to play in the selection process. The investigation already stands concluded and a charge-sheet has already been submitted. The prosecution has admitted that even the prosecution sanction has not been obtained till date and obviously even the cognizance of the offence has not been taken. This accused person is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 whereas he has no criminal history. He has a permanent residence and there is no possibility of his absconding from the process of law. He has undertaken to co-operate in trial.
50. Sri. Manoj Kumar Mishra has further submitted that the continued incarceration of Ramayan will not serve any purpose as the investigation already stands concluded.
51. Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, the learned counsel for Niraj Kumar Verma - the applicant in Bail Application No.7067 of 2025, has submitted that Niraj Kumar Verma was working on the post of Chief Office Superintendent, Electric Traction Training Centre, HQ-DDU, PDDU Railway Division, ECR, arrested by the CBI on 03.03.2025 while he was coming out of a Model Shop. CBI alleged that an amount of Rs 20,00,000/- and certain documents were recovered from his home during the serach conducted by the CBI on 03.03.2025. The charge-sheet mentions that CBI had raided three different spots - (1) Residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti, (2) Raj Marriage Lawn and (3) Residence of Rakesh Kumar. Apparently, the house of Neeraj Kumar Verma had not been raided on 03.03.2025.
52. The CBI has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a Memorandum (D-2) dated 04.03.2025 to contend that the house of Neeraj Kumar Verma was raided on 03.03.2025. However, rough sketch maps of only the houses of Deepak Prakash Jyoti and Rakesh Kumar are part of the said Memorandum and no sketch map of the house of the applicant is part of the said Memorandum.
53. Sri. Himanshu Hemant Gupta has submitted that the house of Neeraj Kumar Verma was searched on 04.03.2025 but no incriminating material was found and the allegation of recovery of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with some documents, is false.
54. Sri. Gupta has further submitted that all the allegations against Neeraj Kumar Verma have been levelled on the basis of his own disclosure statement given to the CBI while he was in custody, which has no evidentiary value. He has further submitted that Neeraj Kumar Verma had no role in the entire promotional exercise, as no responsibility for conduct of examination was entrusted upon him. He was neither a candidate nor the examiner nor had any role in setting up of question paper or its distribution. The alleged examination was to be held on the basis of the paper published in bilingual form and as such, there was no reason for the Applicant or any other person to get the question paper translated from English to Hindi.
55. Sri. Gupta has further submitted that CBI has falsely shown that Neeraj Kumar Verma was arrested on 04.03.2025 whereas he was arrested in the evening of 03.03.2025 and CBI did not produce him before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and thus, violated Section 58 of BNS, 2023 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.
56. Investigation has been completed charge-sheet has been submitted before the Trial Court. However, since CFSL Reports and prosecution sanction with respect to accused persons are pending and even the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C./230 BNSS has not been made, as such, the cognizance of offence has not yet taken place.
57. Sri Satendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for Ajit Kumar Singh - the applicant in Bail application no.6553 of 2025, has submitted that this accused is a Chief Loco Inspector and he was in no way associated in conducting the departmental examination for filling up the vacant posts of Chief Loco Inspector. No question paper or money was recovered from him and no candidate was found with him at the time of his arrest. Apart from section 316(5) B.N.S., all other offences alleged against Ajit Kumar Singh carry the maximum sentence of imprisonment which may extend upto seven years. Ajit Kumar Singh had not been entrusted with the examination paper and it has only been alleged by the prosecution that he had collected bribe from 2 candidates. Sri. Satendra Kumar Singh has submitted that Section 316(5) B.N.S. is not attracted against Ajit Kumar Singh.
58. Rs. 12,92,500/- have allegedly been recovered from the house of Ajit Kumar Singh, based on disclosure by the applicant during the trap proceeding. The learned Counsel Sri. Singh has submitted that the mandate of it would not be admissible in evidence in view of the provision contained in Section 23 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
59. Sri. Satendra Kumar Singh has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka: (2023) 11 SCC 255, wherein it was held that: -
"78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the appellant-accused while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes, etc. then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law..."
60. Sri. Singh has submitted that CBI has not prepared any separate memo for the alleged recovery of Rs. 12,92,500/- and has not recorded any statement of this accused person, which is bad in the eye of law.
61. Sri. Singh has further submitted that the alleged disclosure was made by the applicant on the intervening night of 03.03.2025 and 04.03.20205 during the trap, while he was arrested on 04.03.2025 at 11:20 am, therefore the recovery of the alleged amount based on the disclosure statement was done before the arrest of the Applicant which makes it inadmissible and bad in the eye of law as per the law laid down in State of Karnataka v. David Rozario: (2002) 7 SCC 728, where it was held that:
"5. ...It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands, in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in the custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the information thus received from him. This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : 74 IA 65] is the most-quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the fact discovered envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. (See State of Maharashtra v. Damu [(2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1088 : 2000 Cri LJ 2301] .) No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given."
62. Another Co-accused Suryanath, who was a candidate in the examination and who was assigned the role of collecting bribe amount from other candidates, has already been enlarged on bail by means of an order dated 28.07.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6257/2025.
63. Shri Pranshu Agrawal, the learned counsel for Raj Narayan Singh Yadav the applicant in Bail Application No.6155 of 2025, has submitted that this accused person is Loco Pilot. Being junior to the candidates, he was not even eligible to appear for the departmental examination in question. No incriminating material has been recovered from Raj Narayan Singh Yadav either at the time of his arrest or from his house during its search. He is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025. A charge-sheet has already been submitted against him on 31.05.2025. The trial court has not taken cognizance of the offence till date and even sanction of his prosecution has not been granted till date. This applicant has no criminal history. He is not at flight risk and a co-accused Suryanath, who is said to have collected bribe and from whose residence Rs.5.5 lakhs have been recovered, has already been granted bail in the present case.
64. Sri. Aakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent- C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the bail applications.
65. Shri Aakash Prasad has submitted that no charge-sheet was submitted against Indu Prakash (Sr. DEE(TRD), ECR) because no evidence was found against him during investigation. The original set of leaked question paper in English language was recovered from the house of Niraj Kumar Verma. The original set of question paper in Hindi language was recovered from the house of Rakesh Kumar and this paper contained 93 questions. Copies of question papers in Hindi language containing solutions of 85 questions were recovered from the residence of Deepak Prakash Jyoti. Rs.4.5 Lakhs were recovered from the house of Shushant Parashar. Rs.17,54,200/- were recovered from Surjeet Singh, Rs.20 lakhs were recovered from Niraj Kumar Verma, Rs.43/- lakhs were recovered from Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Rs.17,92,500/- were recovered from Ajit Kumar Singh and Rs.11 Lakhs were recovered from Ramayan who stated that the money was kept at the instructions of accused Raj Narayan Singh.
66. The learned counsel for the respondent CBI has submitted that the applicant Sushant Parashar's case is not at par with the case set up against the other accused persons who have been granted bail. Sushant Parashar is the main accused person in the entire scam. He had set the paper which was leaked by him by handing over its copy to co-accused Anish Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, who was assisting him in preparing the question paper. Anish Kumar in turn handed over the same to Neeraj Kumar Verma, Office Superintendent Training School for circulation amongst the prospective candidates from whom they had collected bribe. The charge-sheet states that Sushant Parashar had been entrusted with the responsibility of preparing the question paper. He had entered into a conspiracy with other officers of Railways to leak the question paper with their solutions in his own writing in English language a day before the examination i.e. on 03.03.2025, to Niraj Kumar Verma through Anish Kumar. Rs.4.35 Lakhs have been recovered from the house of Sushant Parashar which he has not been able to explain. The original document in English in the hand writing of Shushant Parashar was recovered from the residence of Niraj Kumar Verma.
67. Regarding Niraj Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that he was working as an Office Superintendent, Training School and he was also a part of the conspiracy. A part of the money collected as bribe was stashed with Niraj Kumar Verma also. He had been handed over copy of the leaked question paper for circulating the same amongst the candidates.
68. Regarding the applicant Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, Shri Aakash Prasad has submitted that he was working as a Loco Pilot goods and he was also a part of the conspiracy. He had gathered the prospective candidates who had paid bribes and he had disclosed the question paper and assisted them in preparing for the examination. Co-accused Ramayan had accepted bribe from some candidates on behalf of the applicant. Rs.11 lakhs had been recovered from the residence of Ramayan.
69. Regarding Surjeet Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that he was working as Senior D.P.O. - Personnel, he was not named in the FIR and Rs.17,54,200/- were recovered from his residence which established that he was a part of this conspiracy.
70. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has placed reliance on Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher: (2024) 10 SCC 753; Ajwar v. Waseem: (2024) 10 SCC 768; & Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI: (2013) 7 SCC 450, and he has contended that Economic offences constitute a class apart and a person involved in economic offence should not be enlarged on bail.
71. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI: (2013) 7 SCC 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: -
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."
72. In Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher: (2024) 10 SCC 753, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: -
"24. In cases where the allegations coupled with the materials brought on record by the investigation and in the nature of economic offence affecting a large number of people reveal the active role of the accused seeking anticipatory or regular bail, it would be fit for the court granting such bail to impose appropriately strict and additional conditions. In the present case, even that has not been done as the High Court has imposed usual conditions simpliciter : (Vitthal Damuji Mehar v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 14157)
8. The applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 217 of 2019, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 478, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, on executing PR bond of Rs 16,000 (Rupees sixteen thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount.
9. The applicant shall attend Economic Offences Wing, Nagpur as and when required by the investigating officer.
10. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to influence the witnesses or otherwise tamper with the evidence.
11. The applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court.
(emphasis supplied)
25. The High Court, we have no hesitation in saying so, erred in law. Ergo, for reasons recorded above and upon circumspect consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances, we hold that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge of the High Court to grant bail to Respondent 1 was not in tune with the principles that conventionally govern exercise of such power, a plurality of which stand enunciated in the case law supra. Moreover, though Respondent 1 had already suffered incarceration for a period of about six months at the time when bail was granted, yet in view of the nature of the alleged offence, his release on bail can seriously lead to dissipation of the properties where investments have allegedly been made out of Society funds. At the end of the day, the interests of the victims of the scam have also to be factored in."
73. In Ajwar v. Waseem: (2024) 10 SCC 768, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail."
74. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine All 4677, wherein after referring to the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil this Court has held that economic offences do not constitute a separate class and those should be dealt with like any other serious/ grave offence.
75. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles regarding grant of bail in serious offences-
"24. ...In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice.
37. The principles, which the Court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been culled out by this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] thus: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of [the] evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
38. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 31 & 32, paras 18 & 22)
18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)
11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
22. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary.
(emphasis in original)
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.
76. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: -
"52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognise the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception.
53. In the present case, in ED matter as well as CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitised documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial."
77. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2018) 3 SCC 22, it was held that: -
"...... A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re [Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 90].
* * *
16. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. This is a matter that will, of course, be dealt with by the trial Judge. However, what is important, as far as we are concerned, is that during the entire period of investigations which appear to have been spread over seven months, the appellant was not arrested by the investigating officer. Even when the appellant apprehended that he might be arrested after the charge-sheet was filed against him, he was not arrested for a considerable period of time. When he approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against him, he was granted two months' time to appear before the trial Judge. All these facts are an indication that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. That being the case, the trial Judge, as well as the High Court ought to have judiciously exercised discretion and granted bail to the appellant. It is nobody's case that the appellant is a shady character and there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged illegal activity."
78. In Satender Kumar Antil versus CBI: (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"90. ...an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgments, will govern the field:
Precedents
91. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791]:
23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565] of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of grave offence and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
92. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]:
39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds : the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
79. In Kapil Wadhawan v. State of U.P. (supra) this Court has placed reliance on its judgment in Peeyush Kumar Jain v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine All 592, wherein the principles regarding grant of bail in economic offences were summarised after an elaborate consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, in the following words: -
31. The position of law regarding grant of bail which emerges from the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, is that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail in economic offences remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. It is not advisable to categorize all the economic offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. While considering the prayer for grant of bail in any offence, including an economic offence, the Court has to consider:
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment to which the party may be liable in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.
32. A prayer for bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community are against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
80. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears at this stage that although the allegations levelled in the present case make out commission of serious offences, all the applicants are public servants, it is alleged that all of them had conspired to pollute the internal departmental examination for making promotions to the post of Chief Loco Inspector (CLI) by payment of bribes, 16 out of 26 accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and those accused persons were also involved in polluting the examination process and they are also public servants. None of the applicants have any criminal history. The investigation against all the applicants stands concluded. Although the applicants are in jail since March 2025, even sanction for their prosecution has not been granted till date during this period of more than seven months. It cannot be presumed that sanction will be granted. The stage of framing of charges will arise only after cognizance of the offence is taken, which can only be done after grant of sanction for prosecution.
81. Although the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been mentioned above, no observation has been made regarding those, leaving it open for the trial Court to decide the same without being influenced by any observation of this Court.
82. The purpose of keeping an under trial accused person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial. However, although the applicants have been languishing in jail for the past more than seven months, the trial has not even commenced and, therefore, the purpose of keeping the applicants in custody is not being achieved.
83. From the progress attained till date, it appears that the trial would take a very long period to conclude after its commencement.
84. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
85. Accordingly, all the bail applications stand allowed.
86. Let the applicants (1) Sushant Prashar@ Sushant Parashar (2) Ramayan (3) Ajit Kumar Singh (4) Niraj Kumar Verma (5) Raj Narayan Singh Yadav @ R.N.S. Yadav (6) Surjeet Singh (7) Rakesh Kumar (8) Sanjay Kumar Mishra be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(ii) the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court unless their personal presence is exempted.
October 16, 2025
-Amit K-
