# Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar v. C.B.I

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 496
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7025 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sushant-prashar-sushant-parashar-v-c-b-i-52695
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

under Sections 61(2), 112 and 316(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, arising out of an alleged
conspiracy to leak the question paper of a
departmental promotional examination, were
entitled to be enlarged on bail, having regard to
the nature of allegations, the role attributed to
each applicant, the stage of proceedings, delay
in grant of prosecution sanction, and the
principles governing grant of bail in serious and
economic offences.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.61(2),
112, 316(5) - Prevention of Corruption
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
497
Act, 1988 - ss.7, 7A, 8 - Bail - Criminal
conspiracy - Leakage of departmental
examination question paper - Public
servants
-
Economic
offence
-
Completion of investigation - Delay in
prosecution sanction - Prolonged pretrial incarceration -Bail granted.

Held:
The applicants were accused of having entered
into a criminal conspiracy to leak the question
paper of a departmental examination for
promotion to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, in
exchange
for
illegal
gratification.
The
investigation resulted in filing of a charge-sheet
against 26 accused persons, including the
applicants. [Paras 2-6]

It was not in dispute that the investigation stood
concluded, the charge-sheet had already been
filed, and the applicants were in judicial custody
since March 2025. Despite lapse of more than
seven months, sanction for prosecution had not
been accorded, and consequently, cognizance of
the offence had not been taken and the trial had
not commenced. [Paras 56, 80-83]

The Court noted that 16 out of 26 co-accused
persons, who were also public servants and
alleged to have played a role in polluting the
examination process, had already been enlarged
on bail by the High Court. The applicants had no
criminal antecedents, and the question of parity
weighed in their favour. [Paras 36, 62, 80]

While the allegations disclosed commission of
serious
offences
involving
corruption
and
manipulation of examination process, the Court
reiterated that seriousness of the offence alone
cannot be a ground to deny bail, particularly
when investigation is complete and continued
incarceration does not serve the purpose of
securing the presence of the accused at trial.
[Paras 74-79]

The Court took note of the settled principle that
bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and that
prolonged pre-trial detention, in absence of
commencement of trial and when the accused
are not shown to be flight risks or likely to
tamper with evidence, offends the guarantee of
personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. [Paras 34-35, 76-79, 82-83]
In view of the overall facts and circumstances,
including completion of investigation, delay in
prosecution sanction, parity with co-accused,
absence of criminal history, and the likelihood
that the trial would take a long time to
conclude, the Court held that all the applicants
were entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to
conditions. [Paras 80-86]

Bail application allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC
813 - relied on; Manish Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1920 - relied on; Dataram
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3
SCC 22 - relied on; Satender Kumar Antil
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022)
10 SCC 51 - relied on; Sanjay Chandra v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1
SCC 40 - relied on; Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2013) 7 SCC 450 - considered; Manik
Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher,
(2024) 10 SCC 753 - considered; Ajwar v.
Waseem,
(2024)
10
SCC
768
-
considered.

List of Acts / Statutes
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita,
2023;
Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Bail;
C

## Text

_Characters 0–39,934 of 83,915. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._

496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rebutted by the opposite parties. Due to
non-consideration of death certificate of
Onkar Nath Tandon, the order is per-se
illegal and is liable to be set aside.

21. The courts below failed to take
into consideration the amendment of
Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
whereby widows were placed on par with
sons as heirs only by U.P. Act No.27 of
2004. Prior to this amendment, a widow
was not included in the category of heirs
alongside sons, and hence the holdings of
Smt. Tarawati could not have been clubbed
with those of her deceased husband. Nonconsideration of this aspect of the matter
too makes the impugned orders perverse in
nature and hence, they are liable to be set
aside.

22. The findings of the prescribed
authority and the appellate courts are
unsustainable, having been arrived at by
ignoring
binding
evidence
and
by
misapplying
statutory
provisions.
Consequently, the orders declaring surplus
land are liable to be set aside.

23. In view of the reasons recorded
above, the impugned orders dated 6.5.1992,
passed by the prescribed authority, Sitapur
and 15.5.1998, passed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow suffer from apparent illegality
and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
the impugned orders dated 6.5.1992, passed
by the prescribed authority, Sitapur and
15.5.1998, passed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow are hereby set aside. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

24. The matter is remanded back to the
prescribed
authority
to
take
into
consideration the medical certificate issued
by the District Health Officer, Nagar
Mahapalika, Lucknow as well as the
provisions of amended Section 171 of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 and to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law within a
period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 496
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7025 of 2025
& other
connected cases

Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar
...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna, Suhaib Ashraf

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Aakash Prasad

Issue for Consideration
Whether the applicants, accused of offences
under Sections 61(2), 112 and 316(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, arising out of an alleged
conspiracy to leak the question paper of a
departmental promotional examination, were
entitled to be enlarged on bail, having regard to
the nature of allegations, the role attributed to
each applicant, the stage of proceedings, delay
in grant of prosecution sanction, and the
principles governing grant of bail in serious and
economic offences.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.61(2),
112, 316(5) - Prevention of Corruption
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
497
Act, 1988 - ss.7, 7A, 8 - Bail - Criminal
conspiracy - Leakage of departmental
examination question paper - Public
servants
-
Economic
offence
-
Completion of investigation - Delay in
prosecution sanction - Prolonged pretrial incarceration -Bail granted.

Held:
The applicants were accused of having entered
into a criminal conspiracy to leak the question
paper of a departmental examination for
promotion to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, in
exchange
for
illegal
gratification.
The
investigation resulted in filing of a charge-sheet
against 26 accused persons, including the
applicants. [Paras 2-6]

It was not in dispute that the investigation stood
concluded, the charge-sheet had already been
filed, and the applicants were in judicial custody
since March 2025. Despite lapse of more than
seven months, sanction for prosecution had not
been accorded, and consequently, cognizance of
the offence had not been taken and the trial had
not commenced. [Paras 56, 80-83]

The Court noted that 16 out of 26 co-accused
persons, who were also public servants and
alleged to have played a role in polluting the
examination process, had already been enlarged
on bail by the High Court. The applicants had no
criminal antecedents, and the question of parity
weighed in their favour. [Paras 36, 62, 80]

While the allegations disclosed commission of
serious
offences
involving
corruption
and
manipulation of examination process, the Court
reiterated that seriousness of the offence alone
cannot be a ground to deny bail, particularly
when investigation is complete and continued
incarceration does not serve the purpose of
securing the presence of the accused at trial.
[Paras 74-79]

The Court took note of the settled principle that
bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and that
prolonged pre-trial detention, in absence of
commencement of trial and when the accused
are not shown to be flight risks or likely to
tamper with evidence, offends the guarantee of
personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. [Paras 34-35, 76-79, 82-83]
In view of the overall facts and circumstances,
including completion of investigation, delay in
prosecution sanction, parity with co-accused,
absence of criminal history, and the likelihood
that the trial would take a long time to
conclude, the Court held that all the applicants
were entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to
conditions. [Paras 80-86]

Bail application allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC
813 - relied on; Manish Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1920 - relied on; Dataram
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3
SCC 22 - relied on; Satender Kumar Antil
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022)
10 SCC 51 - relied on; Sanjay Chandra v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1
SCC 40 - relied on; Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2013) 7 SCC 450 - considered; Manik
Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher,
(2024) 10 SCC 753 - considered; Ajwar v.
Waseem,
(2024)
10
SCC
768
-
considered.

List of Acts / Statutes
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita,
2023;
Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Bail;
Criminal
conspiracy;
Departmental
examination; Leakage of question paper; Public
servants; Economic offence; Completion of
investigation; Delay in prosecution sanction;
Parity; Prolonged pre-trial incarceration; Article
21.

Case Arising From
F.I.R. No. RC0062025A0007, dated 03.03.2025,
registered by C.B.I./Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Lucknow, under Sections 61(2), 112 and 316(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, relating to leakage of
question paper of the departmental examination
for the post of Chief Loco Inspector.
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Pranjal Krishna; Sri
Suhaib Ashraf; Sri Vinay Kumar; Sri Akansha
Pathak; Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra; Sri Purnendu
Chakravarty; Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta;Sri
Satendra Kumar (Singh); Sri Shivam; Sri
Pranshu Agrawal
For the Respondent(CBI): Sri Aakash
Prasad,Assisted by Shri Shashwat Dwivedi,
Advocate

(Delivered by 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
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
499
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
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
501
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
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
503
Verma
for
circulation
among
the
prospective candidates from whom they
had collected bribes. He alongwith coaccused 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 Jyoti's 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
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 coaccused 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
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
505
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."
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 chargesheet 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
10 All. Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar Vs. C.B.I.
507
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.