Paper leaks ‘more heinous than murder’, says High Court, denying bail to ex-IAS officer

The CBI said that “for obtaining illegal direct and indirect benefits, the applicant, along with other co-accused, breached such confidentiality and provided question papers to his sons”.

“On the basis of the same, one of his sons was selected as deputy collector,” CBI counsel Vaibhav Goverdhan said.

He added: “The case pertains to large-scale irregularities in the conduct of the exam, which strikes at the very integrity and fairness of the public recruitment process, affecting the confidence of thousands of candidates.”

For his part, Dhruv argued that he had been “falsely implicated solely because he was the PSC Secretary”. When contacted, Dhruv’s counsel, Devershi Thakur, reiterated these claims, telling The Indian Express that the allegations were “baseless” and that he was being made a “scapegoat”.

“His name was not in the original FIR and was added only during the investigation. Apart from the seizure of a mobile phone, no incriminating material was recovered from him, and there is no evidence that he leaked the question paper or shared confidential information with his sons,” Dhruv’s counsel, Devershi Thakur, told the court.

Dhruv argued that it was his son’s third attempt. He claimed that he had informed authorities that his sons were candidates and had “kept away from all confidential examination-related work”. “Consequently, he was assigned no confidential duties connected with the examination, as reflected in the office orders and his representation placed on record,” his counsel, Devershi, said.

He further said that while one son failed the examination, the other secured a rank well below the top positions.

“There is no evidence linking me to the alleged paper leak, conspiracy or the main accused. The investigation is complete, the charge sheets have been filed, and with over 100 witnesses yet to be examined, the trial is unlikely to conclude anytime soon,” he said.

Dhruv argued that the Supreme Court had already granted bail to a co-accused and that his case “stands at least on an equal footing”.

“I’m a retired IAS officer with no criminal antecedents, have been in custody since September 18, 2025, and there is no possibility of my absconding or influencing witnesses. Therefore, I deserve to be released on bail,” Thakur added.

Rejecting Dhruv’s arguments, the court said that a person playing “with the career and future of lacs of young aspirants, who are ‘burning the midnight oil’ to prepare for competitive exams” is more heinous than murder “because by killing a person, only one family gets affected, but by ruining the career of lakhs of aspirants”.

“The whole society is adversely impacted,” the court said. “Therefore, the alleged charges levelled against the accused persons, including the present applicants, can by no stretch of imagination be termed as ordinary charges. The action of the accused persons is [a] clear example of ‘fence eating the crop’.”

The applicant, the judge said, “misused his position to supply confidential 2021 Main Examination papers to his son, the material showing his son prepared the very topics that appeared in the exam, and the recoveries, witness statements and other evidence indicating his involvement in the conspiracy”.

The court also said the allegations affected the integrity of the public recruitment process.