TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am, Himanshu Hemant Gupta, Pranshu Agrawal, Purnendu Chakravarty, Subhash Bisaria, Purnendu Chakravarty, Pranjal Jain, For the Opposite Party : Aakash Prasad ORDER 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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. Sever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i 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 origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trusted 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 histor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amely 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imanshu 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 Kum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 effe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined 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 ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvolving 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th; 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nesses. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate 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 econom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 t....