The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to submit its response to a bail plea moved by Jeevan Kishor Dhruv, the former secretary of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, in connection with alleged malpractices during state recruitment exams held between 2020 and 2022.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih, and Sandeep Mehta agreed to examine Dhruv’s petition challenging an August 5 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court that denied him bail. The apex court granted the central probe agency three weeks to respond, allowed the petitioner one week thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit, and listed the matter for hearing in four weeks.
Arrest And High Court Observations
Dhruv, who headed the commission’s secretariat when the recruitment drive took place, was arrested by the CBI in September of the previous year.
He subsequently approached the High Court seeking regular bail. In its August ruling dismissing his plea, the High Court observed that individuals who facilitate question paper leaks jeopardize the careers and futures of hundreds of thousands of aspirants, describing such conduct as more heinous than murder. The High Court further held that the specific allegations against Dhruv, the severity of the charges, and their adverse effect on the integrity of the public selection process disqualified him from receiving discretionary relief.
Prosecution Case And Irregularities
According to the prosecution, the commission conducted the state service examinations across the 2020–2022 cycle, during which Dhruv was tasked with the official responsibility of maintaining strict confidentiality regarding the examination materials.
Investigators alleged that Dhruv, acting in collusion with other co-accused, violated protocols by leaking question papers to his sons. One of his sons subsequently secured a selection as a deputy collector and has also been named an accused in the investigation. Several other individuals, including the commission’s former chairman Taman Singh Sonwani, are also listed as accused in the recruitment scandal.
Defense Contentions
During the earlier proceedings before the High Court, legal counsel representing Dhruv argued that the former official had been falsely implicated solely because of the administrative office he occupied at the time.
The defense contended that Dhruv neither took part in any question paper leak nor was there any substantive material placed on record to demonstrate his complicity in the alleged offenses.
