-
by Admin
19 February 2026 9:36 AM
“Custody Without Commencement of Trial Defeats the Purpose of Justice”: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Eight Accused in ₹1.14 Crore Railway Exam Scam. Allahabad High Court at its Lucknow Bench granting bail to eight accused persons involved in the CBI’s investigation into the alleged leakage of the internal departmental examination paper for the post of Chief Loco Inspector (CLI) in the East Central Railway, DDU Division. While recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial, and absence of sanction for prosecution, weighed heavily in favour of granting bail.
“Serious Offences Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody—Bail is the Rule, Not the Exception”: Court Rebukes Delay in Prosecution
The case stems from FIR RC0062025A0007 dated 03.03.2025, registered by the CBI, ACB Lucknow, against multiple railway officials and private individuals for allegedly leaking the CLI examination question paper in exchange for bribes. Raids conducted on 03.03.2025, a day before the scheduled examination, led to the recovery of the original question paper along with ₹1.14 crore in cash from the accused, including handwritten notes and photocopies matching the official paper. The prosecution alleged a well-organized conspiracy involving setting of the paper, translation, and memorization sessions arranged for candidates.
The applicants, who included public servants such as the question paper setter, Chief Office Superintendents, Senior Divisional Personnel Officers, Loco Inspectors, and candidates, were all arrested in March 2025. However, the Court noted that since their arrest, the trial has not even commenced, and sanction for their prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act had still not been obtained, making further custody unjustified.
“Purpose of Pre-Trial Custody is Not to Punish, But to Secure Justice — When the Trial Has Not Even Started, Continued Incarceration is Arbitrary”
Rejecting the CBI’s opposition, which argued that the applicants had played varying but serious roles in a deeply-rooted criminal conspiracy involving misuse of official position, the Court observed:
“Although the allegations levelled in the present case make out commission of serious offences, 16 out of the 26 accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and even the sanction for their prosecution has not been granted till date during this period of more than seven months.” [Para 80]
“The trial has not even commenced and therefore, the purpose of keeping the applicants in custody is not being achieved.” [Para 82]
The Court emphasized that bail jurisprudence in India is governed by the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”, and reiterated that continued incarceration without meaningful progress in trial amounts to pre-trial punishment, violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Seriousness of the Allegation is Not a Blanket Ground to Refuse Bail”: Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents
The CBI relied on judgments such as Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 450] and Ajwar v. Waseem [(2024) 10 SCC 768] to argue that serious economic offences justify denial of bail. However, the Court noted that those were cases where investigation and trial had reached advanced stages and custodial necessity was apparent.
On the contrary, the applicants placed reliance on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [(2024) 9 SCC 813], Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40], and Satender Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51], all of which reaffirm that “gravity of offence alone is not a determinative factor in denying bail”, especially when trial is delayed, and investigation has concluded.
The Court agreed, holding:
“It is not a rule that bail should be denied in every economic offence... the gravity of the offence and seriousness of allegations alone do not outweigh the constitutional guarantees under Article 21.” [Para 78]
“CBI Failed to Follow Statutory Safeguards During Searches — Evidentiary Concerns Under New Criminal Laws”
In a significant procedural observation, the Court found that searches conducted by the CBI had not complied with mandatory safeguards under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Section 105, which requires audio-video recording of search operations.
The Court also noted that several recoveries relied upon were allegedly made based on custodial disclosures, in violation of Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which prohibits use of statements made in custody unless made before a magistrate.
“Although some recoveries have been made, they appear to have been recovered on the pointing out of the applicants and not on any voluntary disclosure made by them before a Magistrate... in such a situation, the evidentiary value of the recoveries becomes doubtful.” [Para 81]
“Equal Treatment Before Law — Co-Accused Already on Bail, No Ground to Keep Others Inside”
The Court observed that sixteen co-accused persons were already granted bail by the Court, and that none of the present applicants had prior criminal history. They had all remained in custody for over seven months. On the ground of parity, the Court found no justification to treat these applicants differently.
Refusing to accept the CBI’s attempt to differentiate between the roles of the accused, the Court held:
“Although it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the CBI that the applicants are not similarly situated to the co-accused persons who have been granted bail, however, no convincing reason has been given in this regard.” [Para 84]
“Accused Must Not Be Punished Without Trial — Let Bail Serve as a Shield, Not a Sword”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail applications of all eight applicants, namely:
Sushant Prashar, who allegedly authored the leaked question paper
Surjeet Singh, Sr. DPO and alleged initiator of the exam
Niraj Kumar Verma, from whose house the original paper was allegedly recovered
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, who hosted candidates in a marriage lawn
Ajit Kumar Singh, who allegedly received payments and participated in facilitation
Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, alleged to have assisted in coordination
Ramayan, alleged to have received cash from candidates
Rakesh Kumar, who allegedly helped translate and circulate the paper
The Court directed their release upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each, and subjected them to standard bail conditions.
Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed to Bureaucratic Delay
In summation, the Court made clear that while corruption in public institutions like the Railways must be seriously addressed, constitutional safeguards must not be lost in the process. The long delay in obtaining sanction, non-compliance with mandatory procedures, and extended custody without trial rendered further detention unjust and excessive.
“The liberty of a citizen is not contingent upon bureaucratic expediency. To keep an undertrial incarcerated when the trial is nowhere in sight is to penalize a person before guilt is established.”
Date of Decision: 16 October 2025
