Authority: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack (Justice G. Satapathy)

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners (14 individuals including Suresh Chandra Nayak, Sridhar Mantry, Himansu Sekhar Dash, Sankar Prusty, etc.) filed bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with P.S. Case No. 463 of 2025 (Lalbag Police Station) concerning alleged malpractice in the Assistant Section Officer (ASO) recruitment for the High Court of Odisha.
  • Background: On 14 May 2025 the High Court advertised 147 ASO posts; 32,239 applications were received, 32,189 deemed eligible. The preliminary examination (150 marks, 2 hours) was outsourced to Sillicon Techlab Pvt. Ltd (the “Agency”) at Rs 160 per candidate (including GST). 20,260 candidates appeared.
  • The Agency initially announced 7,116 qualified candidates on 9 May 2025; after the High Court’s recruitment cell identified invalid OMR sheets and three unqualified candidates, a revised list of 7,113 qualifiers was submitted on 15 May 2025.
  • The Agency was paid Rs 51,50,498 for conducting the preliminary exam and later contracted to conduct the Main Written Examination and Computer Application Test at Rs 1,000 per candidate (original proposal Rs 1,150). The contract was executed by Himansu Sekhar Dash as authorized representative.
  • Main Written Examination was held on 13 July 2025 at 11 centres in Khurda and Cuttack. Candidates appeared as follows: English – 6,014; General Awareness & Test of Reasoning – 6,009; Mathematics – 5,979. Each paper was 100 marks; GA & TR lasted 1 hour, the other two papers 2 hours each.
  • The Agency submitted question papers and model answer sheets on 14 July 2025; results were submitted on 12 August 2025 indicating 2,120 successful candidates.
  • Investigation uncovered large‑scale illegalities: candidates reproduced answers identical to model answer sheets; many had prior access to confidential question papers; CDR analysis showed frequent communication between accused persons and candidates; the Agency allegedly leaked papers and supplied model answers, leading to cancellation of the Main Examination.
  • FIR (P.S. Case No. 463 of 2025) was lodged on 28 Nov 2025 against the petitioners (including Suresh Chandra Nayak, Himansu Sekhar Dash, Sridhar Mantry, Ipsita Priyadarshini, etc.) for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 111, 3(5) of the BNS and investigation under Section 193(9) of BNSS.
  • The charge‑sheet alleged that the petitioners collected advance money of Rs 2‑4 lakhs per candidate, facilitated access to question papers, supplied handwritten model answer sheets, retained original certificates as security, and transported candidates to secret coaching centres in Bhubaneswar, Cuttack and Berhampur.
  • Multiple petitioners were also linked to earlier exam‑paper‑leak cases (e.g., Sub‑Inspector recruitment, OTET) and alleged to have received illicit payments (e.g., Rs 3 lakhs from a candidate’s father to Satya Brata Mohanty).
  • Counsel for petitioners argued lack of direct material evidence, that alleged actions were limited to project‑head or logistical roles, that no illegal gratification was proven, and that detention was unnecessary. Specific arguments included:
  • Sridhar Mantry’s alleged role limited to verifying question papers; no evidence of leaking.
  • Sankar Prusty’s role as director of Panchsoft Technologies limited to manpower supply; no FIR allegation.
  • Alok Sahoo resigned from the Agency before the alleged offences and had no role in the exam.
  • Several petitioners had no seized documents linking them to the conspiracy.
  • Himansu Sekhar Dash’s request for interim bail on medical grounds was rejected as his sister’s treatment continued without his presence.
  • The State, represented by Specially Engaged Counsel P.S. Nayak, countered that the petitioners collectively orchestrated the leak, collected large sums, and were involved in similar cases, posing a risk of tampering with evidence and further offences.
  • The Court examined precedent (Amit Kumar Alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751) emphasizing that bail cannot be granted merely because the accused have been in custody for a long time when the offence is serious and undermines public trust.

Final Outcome

  • The Court rejected all fourteen bail applications, stating that the prima facie material, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk of evidence tampering, and the broader socio‑economic impact of exam fraud warranted continued detention.
  • The BLAPLs were disposed of, and a soft copy of the judgment was ordered to be transmitted to the Court for reference.

Topics: Exam Paper Leak, Bail Denial