BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 1 of 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL NOs.1912, 1984, 2054, 2259, 2522,

2683, 2942, 2964, 3423, 3433, 3906, 4961, 5825,

5893 of 2026

(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023).

Sridhar Mantry

(In BLAPL No.1912 of 2026)

Nirmalya Krushna Das

(In BLAPL No.1984 of 2026)

Gangadhar Jena

(In BLAPL No.2054 of 2026)

Suresh Chandra Nayak

(In BLAPL No.2259 of 2026)

Alok Sahoo

(In BLAPL No.2522 of 2026)

Sankar Prusty

(In BLAPL No.2683 of 2026)

Sapan Kumar Panda

(In BLAPL No.2942 of 2026)

Lokanath Sahoo

(In BLAPL No.2964 of 2026)

Tafim Ahemmad Khan

(In BLAPL No. 3423 of 2026)

Ramjee Prasad Gupta

(In BLAPL No. 3433 of 2026)

Jyotirmayee Sahoo @ Jyotirmayee Sahu

(In BLAPL No. 3906 of 2026)

Satya Brata Mohanty @ Milu

(In BLAPL No.4961 of 2026)

Epili Sitaram @ E.Sitaram

(In BLAPL No.5825 of 2026)

Himansu Sekhar Dash

(In BLAPL No.5893 of 2026) … Petitioners

Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate along with

Mr. P. Nayak, Advocate & Mr. B.K. Das, Advocate

(in BLAPL Nos.1912 & 2683 of 2026)

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 2 of 36

Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate along

with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate

(in BLAPL Nos.1984 & 5893 of 2026)

Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along

with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.2522 of 2026)

Mr. M. Khatua, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.2054 of 2026)

Mr. D. Nair, Advocate along with

Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.2259 of 2026)

Mr. S.R. Panda, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.2942 of 2026)

Mr. B.K. Das, Advocate

(in BLAPL Nos.2964, 3423 & 5825 of 2026)

Mr. D.K. Das, Advocate

(In BLAPL No.3433 of 2026)

Ms. C. Tripathy, Advocate

(In BLAPL No.3906 of 2026)

Mr. B.B. Choudhury, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.4961 of 2026)

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party

Mr. P.S. Nayak, specially

engaged counsel for the State

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:17.07.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are bail applications U/S.483 of

BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with Lalbag PS Case No.463 of 2025 corresponding to

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 3 of 36

GR Case No.1047 of 2025 pending in the file of learned

SDJM Sadar, Cuttack, for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss. 316(2)/ 316(5)/ 318(4)/ 61(2)/ 111/

3(5) of BNS.

2. The relevant facts in background for

registration of this criminal case against some of the

petitioners and others in sequence are:-

(i) On 14.05.2025, the High Court of Orissa issued

an advertisement vide Advertisement No. 02 of 2024

inviting application from the eligible candidates for

filling up 147 posts of Assistant Section Officer

(ASO). The recruitment process was accordingly

decided to be conducted in four phases; Preliminary

Examination, Main Examination, Computer Test &

Viva Voce Test.

(ii) Pursuant to the advertisement, a total of 32,239

applications were received, but only 32,189

candidates were found eligible to appear in

preliminary examination, but the Preliminary

Examination was outsourced to M/s. Sillicon Techlab

Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar (in short “the Agency”) as it

was selected in a duly bidding process. Although the

petitioner- Suresh Chandra Nayak was the Director

of Agency at the relevant time, but the agreement

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 4 of 36

was signed by Ms. Ipsita Priyadarshini as an

Authorized Representative of the Agency. It was

accordingly decided to conduct the Preliminary

Examination in Optical Mark Recognition (OMR)

mode at the rate of Rs.160/- per candidate including

GST and the data base of the eligible candidates was

handed over to the Agency.

(iii) The Agency did not share the details of the

examination centers with the High Court eventually

resulting in lot of complaints and after series of

meetings with the petitioner-Suresh Chandra Nayak

and others representing the Agency, namely the

petitioner Himansu Sekhar Dash, Sridhar Mantry

(Project Head and SME of the Agency) and Ms. Ipsita

Priyadarshini (project co-coordinator of the Agency),

the Agency finally remapped the examination

centers and reopened the site for downloading of

admit cards. The Agency accordingly conducted the

Preliminary Examination in OMR mode on

04.05.2025 across the State and in such exam,

20,260 out of 32,189 candidates appeared.

(iv) In terms of the advertisement, the candidates

belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

categories are required to secure 33% out of the

total marks and the candidates of other category are

required to secure 40% out of the total marks to

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 5 of 36

qualify for the next exam i.e. the Main Written

Examination. The preliminary examination was of

150 marks and it was of 2 hours duration.

(v) After evaluation of OMR sheets, the Agency

submitted the result on 09.05.2025 stating that only

7,116 candidates have been qualified in the

Preliminary Examination, however, on reassessment

of result by the Recruitment Cell of the High Court of

Orissa, it was found that some invalid OMR sheets

had been accepted as valid and three candidates not

having required qualifying marks were also stated to

have been qualified in the exam. Accordingly, the

same was brought to the knowledge of the Agency

and the Agency revised the result by submitting a

fresh list on 15.05.2025 stating therein that 7,113

candidates have qualified in the Preliminary

Examination instead of 7,116 as shown earlier.

(vi) The bill amounting to Rs.51,50,498/- of the

Agency for conducting Preliminary Examination was

accordingly paid.

(vii) The Agency offered a proposal to conduct the

Main Written Examination and Computer Application

Test at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per candidate and

accordingly, a contract was awarded in favour of the

Agency to conduct the Main Written Examination and

Computer Application Test at the rate of Rs.1,000/-

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 6 of 36

per candidate including GST and an agreement was

executed thereto by the petitioner-Himansu Sekhar

Dash as the Authorized Representative of the

Agency with Registrar (Judicial), High Court of

Orissa.

(viii) The Main Written Examination was held on

13.07.2025 at 11 different centers in the districts of

Khurda and Cuttack and in such examination, 6,014

candidates appeared in English, 6,009 candidates

appeared in General Awareness & Test of Reasoning

and 5,979 candidates appeared in Mathematics. All

the aforesaid papers were of 100 marks each and

the General Awareness &Test of Reasoning was of

one hour duration, whereas the rest two papers

were of two hour duration each.

(ix) On 14.07.2025, the Agency submitted the

copies of question papers as well as the copies of

Model answer sheets of all the three papers to the

High Court. The Agency got the answer sheets

evaluated and submitted the results along with

answer sheets to the High Court on 12.08.2025

informing that 2,120 candidates have come out

successful.

(x) On scrutiny of the result and verification of the

materials relating to examination, large scale

illegalities were found to have been committed

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 7 of 36

compromising the fairness in the examination and it

was found that the Main Written Examination was

not conducted in all fairness and confidentiality in

terms of the agreement. Accordingly, on

28.11.2025, the Registrar (Examination), High Court

of Orissa lodged an FIR before Lalbag Police Station

which came to be registered as P.S. Case No. 463 of

2025 against the petitioners- Suresh Chandra

Nayak, Himansu Sekhar Dash, Sridhar Mantry, Ms.

Ipsita Priyadarshini and others and the matter was

investigated into.

(xi) In the course of investigation, several

candidates were found to have reproduced the

answer identical to the model answer sheets and

many candidates had access to confidential question

papers prior to the exam and multiple candidates

had reproduced answer in verbatim from leaked

model answers.

(xii) The investigation reveals on Call Details

Record(CDR) analysis about frequent communication

between the accused persons and candidates at

various stages of exam. In the course of

investigation, it was found that the petitioners and

others in active criminal conspiracy leaked the

question papers prior to the examination and

supplied the model answer sheets to some of the

candidates resulting in large scale malpractice in the

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 8 of 36

exam leading to cancellation of the Main Written

Examination.

(xiii) Finding prima facie material against the

petitioners and others, charge sheet was placed

against them for commission of offence punishable

U/Ss.316(2)/ 316(5)/ 318(4)/ 61(2)/ 111/ 3(5) of

BNS keeping the investigation open U/Ss.193(9) of

BNSS. The complicity of the petitioners being

allegedly found, they were taken into custody, but

since their bail applications were rejected by the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, they are

before this Court in these bail applications.

3. In highlighting the facts of the case, Mr.

Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel, who is

being assisted by Mr. Pratik Nayak, learned counsel for

the petitioners in BLAPL Nos. 1912 of 2026 and assisted

by Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, learned counsel for the

petitioner in BLAPL No. 2683 of 2026, submits that

there is no direct materials/ evidence against any of the

petitioners, but the petitioner-Sridhar Mantry has been

implicated in this case for leakage of question papers,

however, if the materials on record are taken into

consideration, the petitioner-Sridhar Mantry would only

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 9 of 36

be found to have been to Saraswati press, Calcutta to

obtain the question papers in his pen drive to discharge

his duties as a Project Head of the Agency and the so

called materials placed on record do not constitute the

offences alleged against the petitioner. It is also

submitted by Mr. Nayak that nothing has been seized to

show that the question paper seized in this case are the

copy of original question papers and similarly nobody

has stated that the model question papers given to the

students were the same as the question papers given in

the examination. It is further submitted that there is no

iota of evidence available against the petitioners and

the petitioner- Sridhar Mantry is an Engineer by

profession and has been working with Agency for the

past 07 years as the Project Head, but the Agency is

empanelled by the Government of Odisha and the

Agency was the successful bidder in the tender floated

by High Court of Orissa for conducting the examination

of ASO, 2025 and the petitioner’s role was limited in so

far as he was charged with the duty of verifying the

question papers and to make sure that all the question

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 10 of 36

papers are correct, but the petitioner-Sridhar Mantry

has no involvement in marking of centres, invigilation

of examination hall and evaluation of answer sheets

and the allegation on record do not explicitly states the

illegality committed by the Agency and thereby, the

allegation raised against the petitioners are vague and

baseless. Mr. Nayak further submits that even if

accepting the entire prosecution allegation on the face

of it, the basic ingredients required to constitute the

alleged offences are squarely lacking against the

petitioners, but bail being the rule and the petitioner

being a permanent resident of Jagatsinghpur, there is

hardly any scope for his absconding and therefore,

there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the

petitioner-Sridhar Mantry. Mr. Nayak further submits

that the petitioner Sankar Prusty in BLAPL No. 2683 is

the Director of Panchsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., whose

role is only for supply of manpower to the Agency and

there is no specific allegation against the petitioner

Sankar Prusty in the FIR and no offence is made out

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 11 of 36

against him and the petitioner being a permanent

resident of Narendrapur under Chamakhandi Police

Station, there is hardly any apprehension of his

absconding and thereby, the petitioner- Sankar Prusty

may kindly be granted bail.

3.1. In echoing the submission as advanced by

Mr. Nayak, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned

Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S.

Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner-Alok

Sahoo in BLAPL No. 2522 of 2026 submits that no

doubt the petitioner has been arrested U/S.111 of BNS

along with other offences, but the ingredients of

Sec.111 of BNS are totally absent against the petitioner

and the said Section has been only added to detain the

petitioner further. It is further submitted that the

petitioner Alok Kumar Sahoo was earlier engaged as

the part time employee of the Agency, but he had

resigned from the said company w.e.f. 29.02.2024 and

thereafter, he joined the M/s. Panchsoft Technology

Pvt. Ltd. and was there till 20.11.2025 and thereby, he

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 12 of 36

has no role in the present case, neither as a candidate

nor for working for the Agency to conduct the

examination. It is also submitted for the petitioner Alok

Sahoo that the petitioner has been implicated in this

case mainly on the basis of statement of witnesses-

Akash Kumar Jena and Ashutosh Biswal, but on a bare

reading of their statement, the petitioner would be

found to be engaged by Sankar Prusty and he was

present at a place in a house situated at Pokhariput,

but merely the CDR discloses that the petitioner was in

contact with some of the co-accused persons which by

itself is not sufficient to say conclusively that he was

talking about the examination and its modality to have

any role in malpractice in the examination and there is

hardly any material to suggest that the petitioner is

involved in any criminal conspiracy in the present case

and the investigation being over, it would not be proper

to keep the petitioner in confinement. Accordingly, Mr.

Mohapatra prays to grant bail to the petitioner-Alok

Sahoo.

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 13 of 36

3.2. More or less is the submission advanced by

Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel, who is

being assisted by Mr. Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, learned

counsel for the petitioners Nirmalya Krushna Das and

Himanshu Sekhar Dash in BLAPL Nos. 1984 & 5893 of

2026. It is accordingly submitted that the petitioner

Nirmalya Krushna Das was a salaried employee of the

Agency and was only responsible for providing

manpower for handling and installation of CCTV

cameras in the centers and thereby, the role of the

petitioner is to provide logistic support in the exam and

the petitioner is a victim of circumstance and he has

cooperated the investigation, but no custodial

investigation is required in this case, since the charge

sheet has already been filed and thereby, the petitioner

being not a flight risk or otherwise having no influence

over the witnesses or tampering the evidence, he may

kindly be granted bail. It is also submitted by Mr.

Kanungo to grant bail to the petitioner-Himansu Sekhar

Das as no case is made out against him and the

allegation against him is motivated and product of

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 14 of 36

malice as he has no role in conducting the exam.

Further, Mr. Kanungo, alternatively prays to grant at

least interim bail to the petitioner-Himansu Sekhar Das

for the treatment of his sister.

3.3. Mr. Manoranjan Khatua, learned counsel

for the petitioner-Gangadhar Jena in BLAPL No. 2054 of

2026 submits that the petitioner has been implicated in

this case mainly on CDR analysis, but the petitioner has

no role or nexus with the Agency nor is he involved in

this case in any way. Mr. Khatua further submits that

the petitioner being an intermediary was alleged to

have been engaged in facilitating the candidates and

coordinating illegal arrangements of monetary

consideration, but even according to the prosecution

case, only two original certificates were seized from the

possession of the petitioner and the said certificates

have not been identified or proved to be the certificates

of concerned candidates and thereby, the prosecution

case by itself being found to have admitted that the

documents seized from the petitioner has no lawful

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 15 of 36

nexus with candidate concerned, the petitioner’s

detention in custody is unwarranted and the petitioner

having detained in custody for more than five months

and thereby, he having sufficiently punished, the

petitioner-Gangadhar Jena may kindly be granted bail.

3.4. Mr. Sandeep Raj Panda, learned counsel for

the petitioner- Sapan Kumar Panda in BLAPL No. 2942

of 2026 submits that the petitioner has been taken into

custody in this case on the main allegation of his

involvement by tracing his bank transactions and

statements recorded during investigation, but no

incriminating document is seized from his possession

and the petitioner has already explained that the

transfer of money arose from separate lawful

transactions and there is no material to suggest that

the petitioner has any role in the malpractice, which is

allegedly taken place in conducting the exam and the

prosecution case being based predominately on

documentary and electronic evidence which have

already been seized, the further detention of the

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 16 of 36

petitioner is unwarranted and thereby, the petitioner

Sapan Kumar Panda may kindly be granted bail.

3.5. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Das, learned counsel

for the petitioner- Ramjee Prasad Gupta in BLAPL No.

3433 of 2026 submits that although the petitioner is

named in the FIR, but he has no role in this case and

the petitioner is in custody since long. It is further

submitted that although the petitioner is allegedly

involved in another case which is the OTET case, but he

being innocent and granted bail therein, the petitioner

may kindly be granted bail.

3.6. Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, learned counsel

for the petitioners namely Lokanath Sahoo, Tafim

Ahemmad Khan & Epili Sitaram @ E. Sitaram in BLAPL

Nos. 2964, 3423 & 5825 of 2026 submits that no prima

facie case is made out against any of these three

petitioners, who are no way connected with this case

and even if accepting the prosecution allegation on its

face value, no basic ingredient of any offence alleged

against the petitioners is made out, but the petitioners

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 17 of 36

have been detained in custody since long and they

being permanent resident of different places of the

State and there being no apprehension of their

absconding, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail.

Mr. Das also submits that the allegation against the

petitioners is out and out false and they are not in any

way concerned with this case and therefore, further

detention of the petitioners in custody is unwarranted.

On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Das prays to grant

bail to these three petitioners.

3.7. Ms. Chandana Tripathy, learned counsel for

the petitioner-Jyotirmayee Sahoo @ Jyotirmayee Sahu

in BLAPL No. 3906 of 2026 submits that the petitioner

has neither any nexus with the Agency nor is she

involved in any tender process or execution of any

agreement or contract for conduct of the examination

and thereby, the allegation against the petitioner is

baseless and omnibus and general in nature. It is also

submitted for the petitioner Jyotirmayee Sahoo @

Jyotirmayee Sahu that the prosecution allegation

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 18 of 36

against the petitioner is that she acted as a middle man

or broker for circulating the leaked question papers, but

the such allegations are mere bald assertion without

any further material or evidence collected during the

investigation and the entire case of prosecution exists

on the documentary evidence, such as agreement, OMR

sheets, answer sheets and official correspondence

which have already been seized and thereby, there is

no possibility of tampering the evidence or influencing

the investigation by the petitioner in any manner and

she being a lady aged about 28 years, she may kindly

be granted bail.

3.8. Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, learned counsel

for the petitioner Satya Brata Mohanty @ Milu in BLAPL

No. 4961 of 2026 submits that the petitioner was

neither named in the FIR nor has any role in this case

and there is absolutely no material to show his direct

involvement in this case for leakage of question papers

or manipulation in evaluation process or tampering

official records and the entire allegation against the

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 19 of 36

petitioner is on bald assertion without any legally

admissible & corroboratory materials and so far, the

allegation against the petitioner for receiving Rs.3Lakhs

from the father of the candidate Ashutosh Biswal, it is

factually incorrect and out and out false. It is further

submitted that nothing has been recovered from

conscious possession of the petitioner to connect him

with the alleged offence. Mr. Choudhury further submits

that the petitioner is not an employee of the Agency

and nothing has been seized from him and the

allegation against him for demanding Rs.20Lakhs from

candidates, no document relating to bank transaction of

the petitioner has been seized to connect him with the

said allegation. On the aforesaid submission, Mr.

Choudhury prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.9. Mr. Dheeraj Nair, learned counsel for the

petitioner-Surendra Chandra Nayak submits that the

petitioner being the Director of the Agency has neither

any role nor has any overt act attributed to him and the

materials placed on record at best disclose a

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 20 of 36

contractual dispute between the petitioner and the High

Court of Orissa, but the FIR has been lodged after some

months of expiry of such contractual agreement and

the incorporation of offence U/S.111 of BNS in the

charge sheet is wholly inapplicable to the case at hand,

since there is no organized crime and the petitioner is

never a flight risk. Mr. Nair further submits that there

are 45 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and the case

wholly rests upon documentary evidence which has

already been collected and there is hardly any

apprehension about tampering of documentary

evidence by the petitioner, but trial would definitely

take some more time and therefore, it is not advisable

to keep the accused-petitioner in confinement for long

period. It is also submitted for the petitioner that

criminal liability cannot be fastened vicariously upon a

Director in absence of a statutory provision and more

so when, there is no specific allegation of any active

role played by the petitioner coupled with criminal

intent. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Nair that no

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 21 of 36

criminal antecedent has been reported against the

petitioner and thereby, the petitioner can be admitted

to bail. Under aforesaid submissions, Mr. Nair prays to

grant bail to the petitioner Suresh Chandra Nayak.

3.10. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi

Nayak, learned Specially Engaged Counsel for the State

in opposing the prayer of the petitioners submits that

not only the petitioners had mobilized the candidates

by collecting advance money ranging between

Rs.2Lakhs to Rs.4Lakhs each, but also there are

enough materials to suggest the involvement of the

petitioners for the malpractice in the process of

examination and there is significant allegation against

the petitioner-Sridhar Mantry, who is the Project Head

of the Agency and he has allegedly destroyed the

digital evidence by formatting his Laptop. Mr. Nayak

further submits that similarly the petitioner Suresh

Chandra Nayak being the Director of the Agency,

exercised over all control and illegally entrusted the

examination to M/s. Panchsoft and supervised

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 22 of 36

dissemination of leaked question papers through the

petitioner Himanshu Sekhar Dash, who acted as

operational link between the Agency and the

intermediaries. It is also submitted that the petitioner

Sankar Prusty being the Director of M/s. Panchsoft

Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is the master mind behind the

malpractice and he had unauthorizedly collected illegal

gratification and operated the tutoring centers through

the petitioner Alok Sahoo, Nirmalya Krushna Das for

supplying the question papers and answer sheets to the

respective candidates. It is also submitted that the

petitioners Gangadhar Jena, Jyotirmayee Sahoo @

Jyotirmayee Sahu, Sapan Kumar Panda, Tafim

Ahemmad Khan, Ramjee Prasad Gupta, Epili Sitaram @

E. Sitaram and Satya Brata Mohanty @ Milu mobilized

the candidates and collected advanced consideration

money, retained original educational certificates as

security from the candidates, transported candidates to

the secret coaching centers and facilitated

dissemination of hand written model answer sheets

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 23 of 36

identical to actual question papers and thereby, there is

prima facie materials against these petitioners. Mr.

Nayak submits that the petitioner Suresh Chandra

Nayak, Sankar Prusty, Tafim Ahemmad Khan, Lokanath

Sahoo and Epili Sitaram @ E. Sitaram are also involved

in similar cases relating to recruitment of Sub-Inspector

of Police exam in Odisha, whereas the petitioner

Ramjee Prasad Gupta is implicated in OTET question

papers leakage case and thereby, the activities of these

petitioners are not only confined to this case, but also

they are involved in other criminal case of similar

nature and release of the petitioners would allow them

to tamper with the evidence likely to be tendered in this

case and the petitioners having definite role in

sabotaging the exam, their bail applications may kindly

be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the

FIR has been registered against the petitioners Suresh

Chandra Nayak, Himanshu Sekhar Das, Sridhar Mantry,

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 24 of 36

Ipsita Priyadarshini (not a petitioner) and others and

there appears allegation against the petitioners for

leaking the question papers of ASO Examination, 2025

in a systematic and organized manner by receiving

illegal gratification and thereby, forcing the High Court

to cancel the Main Examination of the ASO recruitment

and reconduct it. It cannot be disputed that due to

cancellation of examination, thousands of candidates

must have suffered. Besides, this is not the solitary

case against the petitioner Sankar Prusty, Suresh

Chandra Nayak, Tafim Ahemmad Khan, Lokanath

Sahoo and Epili Sitaram @ E. Sitaram, who have been

allegedly implicated earlier in the criminal case lodged

for leaking of question papers of recruitment

Examination of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of

Odisha which forced the State Government to cancel

such recruitment examination and reconduct it.

Similarly, the petitioner Ramjee Prasad Gupta is also

implicated in OTET question paper leak case. The

materials on record also discloses that the petitioner

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 25 of 36

Suresh Chandra Nayak is the Director of the Agency,

who was entrusted to conduct the Main Examination

which was cancelled for leaking of the question papers

and supplying the model answers to the candidates.

The allegations against the petitioners as gathered from

the record revolve around the larger angle of

conspiracy and the role as alleged against each of the

petitioners is available in details on record. Sabotaging

the exam in this way by leaking the question papers

and supplying the model answer sheets to the aspiring

candidates definitely corrodes the morale of

meritorious candidates and the allegation against the

petitioner definitely reveals a crime against society,

which cannot be accepted in any way and the allegation

against the petitioners depicts a socio economic offence

of huge magnitude and no civilized society can ever

accept the leaking of question papers in recruitment

examination to Government posts. This Court, however,

is conscious of the fact that the charge sheet has

already been submitted and the petitioners are in

custody for some time, but that is not enough to

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 26 of 36

consider the bail applications of the petitioners in a

case like this. In this regard, this Court is also alive

with the decision in State of Bihar & another Vrs.

Amit Kumar Alias Bachcha Rai; (2017) 13 SCC 751

wherein the Apex Court while dealing with somewhat

similar issue has held at Paragraph-8 as under:-

“8. A bare reading of the order impugned

discloses that the High Court has not given any

reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical

way, the High Court granted bail more on the

fact that the accused is already in custody for a

long time. When the seriousness of the offence

is such the mere fact that he was in jail for,

however, long time should not be the concern of

the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a

casual approach while granting bail in a case

which has the effect of undermining the trust of

people in the integrity of the education system

in the State of Bihar.”

5. It is also equally important that if an

undeserving candidate is allowed to get the job by

corrupt means, not only the society will be deprived of

deserving candidates, but also it would be unfair for

those meritorious candidates who are honestly working

hard and waiting for their turn in the exam, but

ultimately finding themselves disentitled to the post

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 27 of 36

because of such fraudulent practices and malpractices

of unscrupulous persons. It is also equally important

that the socio-economic offence constitute a class apart

and need to be visited with different approach in the

matter of bail. It cannot be forgotten that competitive

and public recruitment exams demand the highest

standards of integrity and transparency, but in recent

past malicious elements, organized paper leak

syndicate, negligent service vendors have severely

disrupted public exams. These paper leaks yield

massive illicit financial gains for criminals while

shattering the confidence of millions of hardworking

youths. The leakage of public recruitment exam papers

is not merely a common criminal offence; it is a direct

assault on the socio-economic fabric of the society and

shatters the public trust in meritocracy. The offence

deprives lakhs of honest hardworking candidates of

their livelihood causing deep institutional damage and

public anger.

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 28 of 36

6. In the course of investigation, the

Investigating Agency has seized question papers, model

answer sheets as well as mobile phones, hard disks and

other electronic devices/gazettes together with financial

transaction records and candidates data and analyzed

the CDR analysis. It cannot also be forgotten that

pursuant to the advertisement for filling up 147 posts of

ASO in High Court of Orissa, 32,239 applications were

received, out of such application 32,189 candidates

were found eligible, but 20,260 candidates appeared in

the Preliminary Exam, whereas 7116 candidates were

declared eligible to sit in the Main Exam, but more than

5000 candidates appeared in the Main Examination

which was in fact cancelled due to allegation of leakage

of question papers and irregularity and malpractices

done in the exam by the Agency. It is alleged that the

intermediary induced the candidates with assurance of

success in the exam for illegal gratification ranging

from Rs. 2Lakh to Rs.4Lakh. It is also alleged that the

candidates were transported to different tutoring

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 29 of 36

centers at Bhubaneswar, Cuttack and Berhampur and

they were provided with hand written model answers

identical to the actual examination content and they

were instructed to memorize and reproduce such

answers during examination which is evident from the

statement of some of the candidates.

7. It appears that the petitioner Sridhar

Mantry being the Project Head and subject matter

expert of the Agency has been alleged for entering into

conspiracy for the leakage of question papers and

supply of model answers to the candidates appearing in

the ASO Examination, 2024-25. Besides, there is

allegation against the petitioner Sridhar Mantry for

personally visiting the press and supplying confidential

examination materials including question papers and

model answers in soft copy through a pen-drive for

printing purpose. It is also found from the record that

model answer sheets were allegedly seized from his

official table and his laptop was stated to be formatted

to destroy digital evidence. Similarly, there is allegation

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 30 of 36

against the petitioner Himanshu Sekhar Dash, who is

the Authorized Signatory of the Agency for having

active role in conspiracy with co-accused persons. The

petitioners Suresh Chandra Nayak, Sridhar Mantry,

Sankar Prusty, Alok Sahoo and Nirmalya Krushna Das

have been alleged for facilitating leakage of question

papers and model answers sheets. The petitioner

Nirmalya Krushna Das being an employee of Panchsoft

Technology has been alleged for actively participating in

criminal conspiracy to supply the model answers to the

candidates. It is also alleged against the petitioner-

Gangadhar Jena for supplying the question papers and

model answer sheets to the candidates of ASO

Examination, 2024-25 as a broker or agent and the

same allegation is against the petitioner Jyotirmayee

Sahoo @ Jyotirmayee Sahu, Alok Sahoo and Sapan

Kumar Panda. It is, however, alleged against the

petitioner Loknath Sahoo for facilitating leakage of

question papers and supply of model answers to the

candidates, so also against the petitioner Tafim

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 31 of 36

Ahemmad Khan. It is alleged that the petitioner Ramjee

Prasad Gupta is one of the principal accused for leakage

of question papers and supply of model answer sheets

to the candidates and his role can be ascertained from

the statement of witnesses Biswa Pratap Rout, Arun

Kumar Jena, Ansul Sarangi, Prasant Lenka. It is also

alleged against the petitioner Suresh Chandra Nayak

that under his direction, the Examination process was

illegally delegated to M/s. Panchsoft Pvt. Ltd. through

co-accused Sankar Prusty and the same is without

approval of the High Court and in clear violation of

contractual conditions. It is further alleged that the

petitioner Sridhar Mantry was the custodian of question

papers and model answers and the petitioner Himanshu

Sekhar Dash, was entrusted to conduct the exam under

the supervision and control of the petitioner Suresh

Chandra Nayak, but he has been alleged for leaking the

question papers through the co-accused persons.

Similarly, there is serious allegation against the

petitioner Sankar Prusty for facilitating leakage of

question papers and supply of model answer sheets to

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 32 of 36

the candidates of ASO Examination, 2024-25 and it is

alleged that the CDR analysis of the mobile nos. used

by the petitioner Sankar Prusty reveals frequent

contact between him, beneficiary candidates, agents

and co-accused persons and his phone was allegedly

switched off during 10.07.2025 to 12.07.2025. The

statement of witnesses Gitanjali Patra, Ashutosh Biswal

and Akash Kumar Jena reveal allegation against the

petitioner Sankar Prusty.

8. It is, albeit, claimed for the petitioner

Suresh Chandra Nayak in the written argument that a

pending investigation cannot be equated with criminal

antecedents warranting denial of bail, nonetheless the

petitioner-Suresh Chandra Nayak is allegedly found

implicated in CBI ACB FIR No.RC-35-(A)/2025

{RC0152025A0035}, which is a case involving

allegation of leaking of question papers in SI of Police

Recruitment Examination in the State of Odisha. No

doubt bail is the rule, but jail is the exception, however,

one of the important considerations for detaining a

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 33 of 36

person in custody is preventing him from commission of

further crime and the alleged involvement of the

petitioners-Suresh Chandra Nayak, Shankar Prusty,

Tafim Ahmed Khan, Lokanath Sahu, Ramjee Prasad

Gupta & Ipili Sitaram in another case of similar nature

is an adverse circumstance against them in extending

the discretionary relief of bail. Further, the involvement

of these petitioners except the petitioner-Suresh

Chandra Nayak and Ramjee Prasad Gupta in another

case has not been disclosed in their bail applications

and with regard to non-disclosure of alleged

involvement of such petitioners in a criminal case of

similar nature, it is considered apt to refer to the

decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh;

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court

at Paragraph 9 of the decision has held as under: -

“9. xx xx xx, since the petitioner has

suppressed material facts with regard to

his involvement in criminal cases, he is

not entitled to the discretionary relief of

bail. xx xx”.

It is also alleged that multiple candidates have

reproduced answers in verbatim which tallied with the

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 34 of 36

supplied model answer sheets and the petitioner Suresh

Chandra Nayak was the Director of the Agency at the

relevant time of conduct of examination and in the

course of investigation, the investigating agency has

also analyzed the CDR of the phone numbers used by

the petitioners. It is, however, claimed that no offence

U/S. 111 of BNS is made out against any of the

petitioners, but it is pre-mature to assess materials to

reach such conclusion in a bail proceeding. Besides, the

petitioners are in custody for some months and

thereby, it cannot be said that the petitioners are in

custody for a long period. Further, it is alleged against

the petitioner-Satya Brata Mohanty for receiving

Rs.3,00,000/- from the father of the candidate

Ashutosh Biswal for assuring him success in the exam

and there also allegation against him for retaining the

original certificates of the candidate Ashutosh Biswal

from his father as a security for payment of balance

amount. The investigation against the petitioner- Satya

Brata Mohanty is going on.

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 35 of 36

9. On coming to the interim bail plea of the

petitioner-Himansu Sekhar Dash, it appears that he has

sought for interim bail for the treatment of his sister,

but the medical documents as furnished by the

petitioner itself reveals that the sister of the petitioner

had been to CMC Vellore even when the petitioner

himself was in custody and the patient was also

admitted to KIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar on

13.05.2026 and discharged there from on 17.05.2026

and the admission form was signed by her mother as

attendant. It, therefore, summarily found that the

detention of the petitioner is not a hindrance for the

treatment of his sister and her treatment is going on

even if in the absence of the petitioner and, therefore,

there is no merit in the alternative plea of the

petitioner-Himansu Sekhar Dash.

10. In view of the above facts and taking into

consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as

alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusations

sought to be brought against them and regard being

BLAPL Nos.1912 of 2026 and other cases

Page 36 of 36

had to the materials so placed on record and there

being allegation against the petitioners for leaking the

question papers and supplying model answer sheets to

the candidates by adopting unfair corrupt practices

ultimately forcing the High Court to cancel the Main

Recruitment Examination of ASO causing serious

inconvenience to meritorious candidates at large and

lastly, taking into account the role as alleged against

the individual petitioner and the implication of some of

the petitioners in similar type of offence for sabotaging

other recruitment examinations, this Court is not

inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners.

11. Hence, these 14(Fourteen) bail applications

of the Petitioners stand rejected. Accordingly, these

BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment

be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over

the matter for reference.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 17

th

day of July, 2026/S. Sasmal