Retired IAS Secretary of CGPSC Denied Bail in CBI Paper-Leak Case; HC Calls Act “Fence Eating the Crop”

The Chhattisgarh High Court refused bail to the former Secretary of the CGPSC, accused of leaking question papers to his own son who was a candidate in the State Civil Services Examination, 2021, and was subsequently selected as Deputy Collector.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, sitting singly at the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, on 5 August 2026 rejected the first bail application filed by Jeevan Kishor Dhruv, a retired IAS officer who served as Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission at the time of the alleged offence. The CBI has charge-sheeted Dhruv as Accused No. 8 in connection with the large-scale leakage of question papers in the CGPSC State Civil Services Main Examination, 2021. The prosecution's case is that Dhruv abused his position to obtain confidential question papers and pass them to his son, Sumit Dhruv, who was himself a candidate in that very examination and was thereafter selected as Deputy Collector. The court found prima facie material against the applicant sufficient to decline bail, placing the gravity of examination fraud on the same plane as serious crimes against society.

The CGPSC Examination Fraud and the CBI Takeover

Two separate FIRs — Crime No. 05/2024 registered with the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, and Crime No. 28/2024 of Arjunda PS, District Balod — were initially registered regarding irregularities in the CGPSC recruitment process. The State Government subsequently issued notifications transferring both matters to the CBI, which registered RC No. 1242024A0004 at its Anti Corruption Branch/Economic Offences Wing, Raipur.

The original FIR named seven accused. A-1 Taman Singh Sonwani was the then Chairman of the PSC. A-2 Shravan Kumar Goyal is a director of Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd. His son A-3 Shashank Goyal and daughter-in-law A-4 Ms. Bhumika Katiyar were also named. A-5 and A-6, Nitesh Sonwani and Sahil Sonwani, are nephews of A-1. A-7 Lalit Ganvir served as Deputy Controller (Examination) of the PSC. During the course of CBI investigation, Jeevan Kishor Dhruv was inculpated as A-8 and his son Sumit Dhruv as A-9.

The prosecution's case is that during 2020–2022, A-1 directed that question papers be leaked and shared with A-5 and A-6, who in turn passed them to A-7. A-7 then shared them with A-2, who provided the papers to A-3 and A-4. As for Dhruv, the allegation is that he — as Secretary of the PSC with a specific duty of confidentiality — breached that duty for direct and indirect benefit, supplying question papers to his son Sumit Dhruv, who was then a candidate.

Prosecution's Material Against Dhruv

Dhruv joined as Secretary of the PSC on 6 October 2020. The advertisement for the CGPSC Examination, 2021 was issued under his signatures. His son Sumit Dhruv applied for that examination and was ultimately selected as Deputy Collector.

During a search at the applicant's residence, copies of questions and answers pertaining to Paper No. 7 (General Studies) and the Question-cum-Answer Booklet of Paper No. 2 (Essay) were recovered. The Controller of Examination, Ms. Leena Kosam, disclosed during investigation that 42 out of 47 questions in Paper No. 7 of the Main Examination, 2021 were identical to those recovered from the applicant's home. She also identified the Question-cum-Answer Booklet of Paper No. 2, bearing bar code, dummy number and counterfoil, as belonging to Sumit Dhruv.

Investigation further revealed that before appearing in the examination, Sumit Dhruv had practised essays on four specific topics: Cryptocurrency — A Reality; Russia-Ukraine War — Role of the United Nations; Dantewada District — Stages of Development; and the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act. All four topics were subsequently asked in the CGPSC Main Examination, 2021.

Statements of moderators Smt. Nagratan Ganvir and Shri R.K. Purohit and other examination officials corroborated the prosecution's case. Their model answers substantially matched the material seized from the applicant's residence. The CBI also relied on the position that final question papers could not be printed or circulated without approval from competent authorities, pointing to a conspiracy involving senior functionaries of the Commission. Charge-sheets and supplementary charge-sheets were filed against the applicant, his son, and other accused.

Applicant's Arguments for Bail

Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Devershi Thakur with Mr. Vimal Pathak, submitted that Dhruv was falsely implicated solely on account of his designation as Secretary and that his name did not appear in the original FIR. It was argued that no incriminating article other than one mobile phone was seized from him, and that there was no evidence he leaked or transmitted any question paper to his children.

A central plank of the defence was that as soon as Dhruv learnt that both his sons were candidates in the PSC examination, he himself informed the competent authorities of the PSC and requested to be kept away from all confidential examination-related work. The higher authorities thereafter assigned him no confidential work. Copies of the relevant office orders and his representation were placed on record. The applicant contended that certain documents he had separately sought under Section 230 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 207 CrPC) had not been included in the charge-sheet despite being seized during investigation, and those documents would establish his exclusion from confidential work.

Counsel further argued that one son, Amit Dhruv, was unsuccessful in the examination, and the other son, Sumit Dhruv, secured a rank far below the top positions. Had there been any manipulation, both sons would have secured top positions, which did not happen. No financial transaction or meeting of minds between the applicant and the principal accused was alleged to have been established by the CBI.

On the question of parity, the applicant relied on an order of the Supreme Court granting bail to A-2, noting that investigation had concluded, charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time. With more than one hundred prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined and charges yet to be framed, the applicant argued that the trial would not conclude in the near future. Dhruv, aged about 62 years, has been in judicial custody since 18 September 2025, has no criminal antecedents, and is a retired IAS officer with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.

CBI's Opposition and the Parity Argument

Counsel for the CBI, Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, opposed bail on the basis of the gravity of the offence, the material collected, and the pivotal role attributed to Dhruv in the conspiracy. The CBI distinguished between the applicant and A-2, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court: A-2 was a private individual, whereas Dhruv was a public servant occupying the position of Secretary, CGPSC, entrusted with safeguarding the secrecy and integrity of the recruitment process. The allegations against Dhruv were described as qualitatively and substantially graver.

The CBI submitted that the applicant's claim of having distanced himself from confidential work was belied by the material collected during investigation, and that notwithstanding any such claim, the prosecution's case was that he remained part of the conspiracy and succeeded in obtaining confidential question papers for use by his son. It was further submitted that as an influential retired senior bureaucrat, if enlarged on bail, Dhruv could tamper with documentary evidence or influence prosecution witnesses, many of whom are officials connected with the Commission's functioning.

Court's Reasoning

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru declined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The court reiterated an observation it had recorded while considering bail applications of other accused in the same crime: that a person who facilitates leakage of question papers in competitive examinations “plays with the career and future of lacs of young aspirants.” The court remarked that such an act is more heinous than murder because killing one person affects one family, whereas ruining the careers of lakhs of aspirants adversely impacts society as a whole. The charges were said to be no ordinary charges, and the conduct of the accused persons was described as a clear example of “fence eating the crop.”

On the specific role attributed to Dhruv, the court took into account: his position as Secretary of the CGPSC with a duty to maintain strict confidentiality; the prosecution's material showing he retained confidential question papers of the CGPSC Main Examination, 2021; the recovery of question papers and answer material from his residence; the fact that 42 out of 47 questions in Paper No. 7 matched material seized from his home; the practice of four essay topics by his son — all of which appeared in the actual examination; and his son's subsequent selection as Deputy Collector.

The court also took into account the statements of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the recoveries effected. On the question of parity with A-2, the court accepted the CBI's submission that the principle of parity was inapplicable given the difference in the nature of A-2's role (as a private individual) and Dhruv's role (as a senior public official entrusted with the secrecy of the examination process).

The court was not persuaded that the case was fit for bail, having regard to the specific role attributed to the applicant, the gravity of the allegations, and their adverse impact on the sanctity of the public recruitment process. It further noted that the accused persons, including the present applicant, had not maintained the confidentiality and sanctity required of the examination process.

Outcome

The first bail application filed by Jeevan Kishor Dhruv (A-8) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in MCrC No. 5952 of 2026 was rejected by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on 5 August 2026. Dhruv, who has been in judicial custody since 18 September 2025, remains in custody. The charges under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) are yet to be framed before the trial court.