The Chhattisgarh high court rejected the bail application of a retired IAS officer, arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the alleged Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) recruitment case, observing that leaking question papers of competitive examinations is “more heinous than murder” as it destroys the careers of lakhs of aspirants.
Jeevan Kishore Dhruv (62), who was serving as secretary of the CGPSC when the alleged irregularities took place during the 2020-2022 recruitment process, was arrested by the CBI in September 2025. His son, Sumit Dhruv, who was selected as a deputy collector through the recruitment examination under investigation, is also an accused.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru had reserved the order on Dhruv’s bail plea on July 31. The order was pronounced on July 5.
“It is reiterated again, as observed while considering the bail applications of other accused persons in the crime in question, that a person who indulges in facilitating leakage of question paper relating to competitive examinations, plays with the career and future of lacs of young aspirants, who are ‘burning the midnight oil’ to prepare for competitive exams, such an act is more heinous than an offence of murder because by killing a person, only one family gets affected but by ruining the career of lacs of aspirants whole society is adversely impacted,” the high court observed.
The court said the charges against the accused could not be treated as ordinary in view of the gravity of the offence.
The high court noted that the prosecution had, prima facie, collected material indicating that Dhruv, while serving as CGPSC Secretary, abused his official position by retaining confidential question papers of the 2021 Main Examination and supplying them to his son.
According to the order, the prosecution had also gathered evidence suggesting that Sumit Dhruv had prepared four specific topics that subsequently appeared in the examination. Recoveries made from the applicant’s residence, witness statements and documentary evidence also prima facie pointed to his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
“Considering the specific role attributed to the applicant, the gravity of the allegations and their adverse impact on the sanctity of the public recruitment process, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant,” the order said.
During the hearing, Dhruv’s counsel, advocate Devershi Thakur, argued that his client had been falsely implicated merely because he was the CGPSC Secretary and was not named in the original FIR.
The defence submitted that no incriminating documents or electronic devices, except a mobile phone, were recovered from Dhruv and there was no evidence to show that he leaked question papers or passed them on to his children.
It was further argued that after learning both his sons were candidates in the examination, Dhruv had informed the competent CGPSC authorities and sought to be relieved of all confidential work related to the recruitment process. Official records, the defence said, showed that he was accordingly assigned no confidential examination-related duties.
The defence also contended that allegations of favouritism were belied by the fact that one of Dhruv’s sons failed to qualify while the other secured a rank well below the top position.
Opposing the plea, CBI counsel Vaibhav A. Goverdhan argued that the case involved large-scale irregularities that struck at the integrity of the public recruitment process and eroded the confidence of thousands of candidates.
The CBI alleged that Dhruv, along with the then CGPSC chairman, controller of examinations and other accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy to leak confidential question papers of the 2021 Main Examination, enabling his son to gain an illegal advantage.
The agency claimed that copies of questions and answers relating to General Studies Paper VII and the Question-cum-Answer Booklet of the Essay paper were recovered during searches at Dhruv’s residence.
On the defence’s plea seeking parity with another accused who was granted bail by the Supreme Court, the CBI argued that the co-accused was a private individual, whereas Dhruv was a senior public servant entrusted with maintaining the secrecy and integrity of the examination process.
