Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 12 June 2026 (pronounced); arguments concluded on 11 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh (son of Late Jhuri Singh), former Chief Scientist and Head of Research Group, CSIR‑CIMFR; Opposite Party – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) represented by Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad.
  • FIR Details: FIR No. RC 4(A)/2023D registered in the court of ADJ‑III‑cum‑Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad under Sections 120‑B read with 420 IPC, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) & 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended 2018).
  • Allegations: Between 2016‑2021, petitioner allegedly distributed project fee/intellectual fee/honorarium amounting to Rs 1,39,79,97,871 to various officials, including non‑technical staff (librarians, MBBS doctors, drivers), in violation of CSIR Guidelines (2005 & 2017). The petitioner is accused of receiving Rs 9,04,31,337 as intellectual fee/honorarium himself.
  • Co‑accused: Dr. P.K. Singh (Director, CSIR‑CIMFR) and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh (Director, CSIR‑CIMFR). The Director allegedly received Rs 15,36,72,000.
  • Project Structure: Four MOUs for third‑party coal sampling signed on 28‑06‑2016, each with a 10‑year term extendable by five years. Under these MOUs, 304 coal‑sampling projects were created by subdividing the agreements, facilitating the distribution of honorarium.
  • Guidelines Cited:
  • CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization of Knowledgebase‑2017 (effective 01‑09‑2017) – Clause 7.1 stipulates 25 % of project cost (excluding capital cost) is distributable to staff; Clause 7.4(iv) allocates that 65 % of this share goes to Innovators & Principal Contributors, 20 % to directly associated S&T staff, 10 % to administrative staff, and 5 % to CSIR Welfare Fund.
  • Clause 8.1.1(f) – amount paid to staff is recoverable if legal action/ dispute arises.
  • Clause 8.1.4(s) – no ceiling on honorarium receivable by an individual since 01‑06‑2005.
  • Financial Flow Evidence: Annexure‑10 (page 291) shows external cash flow from FY 2005‑06 to FY 2020‑21, with a surge during the COVID‑19 period (FY 2019‑20).
  • Recovery Status: More than 50 % of the petitioner’s intellectual fee has already been recovered; recovery is under challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
  • Prior Orders:
  • Order dated 16‑09‑2023 (R.C. Case No.4 (A)/2003 (D), MCA No.2612 of 2023) directed release of frozen bank accounts of petitioner and family members.
  • Interim relief order (W.P.(S) No.5807 of 2022) related to a notice dated 05‑08‑2022 demanding refund of honorarium paid in March 2021.
  • Anticipatory bail granted to co‑accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh in ABA No. 2545 of 2025 (dated 19‑11‑2025).
  • Petitioner’s Defence: Argues that the MOU allowed separate agreements, that no specific period for each agreement was stipulated, and that all disbursements complied with CSIR Guidelines and were made under the Director’s instruction.
  • CBI’s Counter‑Argument: Claims petitioner received Rs 9,04,31,337 and facilitated illegal distribution of Rs 1,39,79,97,871 to ineligible persons, causing wrongful loss to CSIR‑CIMFR.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after evaluating the allegations, guidelines, and lack of proper project records, concluded that the petitioner was directly involved in arbitrary disbursement of honorarium in violation of CSIR Guidelines.
  • Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected. The petitioner does not receive the privilege granted to the co‑accused Director.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Corruption in Research Institutes, CSIR Honorarium Guidelines