Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: BAIL MATTERS 250/2026
PROF RAMESH CHAN DRA KISHORI LAL
GOYAL Vs. CBI
01.10.2026
Present: Sh. M. Saraswat, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
Sh. Vivek Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant
(through VC).
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicant Prof.
Ramesh Chandra Kishori Lal Goyal @ Ramesh Kumar Goyal
seeks anticipatory bail in the above-mentioned case.
2. The case was registered by CBI on 15.07.2026 on the basis of
source information concerning alleged irregularities in
recruitment to teaching posts in Delhi Pharmaceutical
Sciences and Research University (DPSRU) during the years
2017 to 2019. As per CBI, the applicant, who was then Vice-
Chancellor of DPSRU, along with other persons, entered into
a criminal conspiracy whereby certain candidates were
selected to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor despite allegedly not fulfilling the
prescribed eligibility conditions and on the strength of
false/fabricated experience certificates and other supporting
documents.
3. CBI has alleged,
inter alia, that an Inquiry Committee
comprising officials of the Directorate of Vigilance and
Education Department had found irregularities in the
recruitment process; that alterations were noticed in score-
sheets/minutes of meetings; and that certain candidates were
allegedly changed from “Non-Eligible” to “Eligible” without
Page no. 1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
justification. It is further alleged that recruitment
rules/regulations prescribed by UGC/PCI were violated.
4. The applicant, on the other hand, has contended that he had
travelled to Canada on 14.07.2026, i.e. a day prior to
registration of the present case, pursuant to a professional visit
which had been planned several months earlier. According to
the applicant, he thereafter returned to India in accordance
with his pre-fixed itinerary despite having come to know
about registration of the case. It is further his case that no
notice or summons requiring him to join investigation had
been issued to him and that he is ready and willing to join and
cooperate with the investigation.
5. On 17.09.2026, learned counsel for the applicant, without
pressing the application on merits at that stage, submitted that
the applicant was willing to join investigation as and when
required and that he would withdraw the application if CBI
were to give him three working days’ pre-arrest notice,
thereby enabling him to avail his remedy for anticipatory bail
should the investigating agency subsequently consider his
arrest necessary. The applicant had also joined the Court
proceedings through VC and submitted that he had returned to
India as per his itinerary.
6. Learned Sr. PP for CBI submitted on that date that
investigation was at an initial stage and that, as of then, it was
not clear whether custodial interrogation of the applicant
would be required. The reply then on record was also found
not to contain sufficient particulars regarding the status of
investigation and the material allegedly discovered indicating
Page no. 2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
prima facie involvement of the applicant. CBI was
accordingly granted an opportunity to file an additional reply
and to take instructions regarding the aforesaid proposal.
7. In the meanwhile, considering,
inter alia, that the alleged acts
pertained to the years 2017-2019; that the FIR had already
been registered about two months earlier without any notice
having been issued to the applicant to join investigation; that
no Look Out Circular had been opened; and that the applicant
had returned to India, interim protection was granted till the
next date while leaving CBI at liberty to call the applicant to
join investigation.
8. CBI has thereafter filed an additional reply on 28.09.2026. It
is stated therein that searches were conducted at the premises
of the accused persons, except at the residence of the present
applicant since he was in Canada on the date of search.
Various documents including alleged experience certificates,
personnel files and recruitment files relating to the posts in
question were seized. CBI states that the documents are
voluminous and their scrutiny is underway and the
investigation is at a very initial stage and certain aspects of the
case are yet to be investigated and relevant evidence/material
is yet to be collected and verified.
9. According to the additional reply, initial scrutiny has revealed,
inter alia, that certain notifications/vacancies were allegedly
published without appropriate approvals and that the original
upper age limit of “not exceeding 35 years” in a document
was altered by cutting the figure “35” and writing “40 years”
in pen. It is also stated that the requisite approvals regarding
Page no. 3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
eligibility criteria, scheme of examination, last date for
submission of applications, corrigenda and SC/ST/OBC
criteria are not available on record. CBI claims that the
material collected prima facie indicates involvement of the
applicant, who, according to the investigating agency, was the
head of DPSRU and the mastermind behind the alleged
offence.
10. CBI has further relied upon the applicant’s alleged non-
cooperation with the earlier Inquiry Committee, particularly
the alleged failure to produce original records pertaining to
meetings of the Scrutiny Committee and the MCQ test
conducted during the recruitment process. It has expressed
apprehension regarding influencing witnesses, tampering with
evidence and hampering investigation.
11. As regards custodial interrogation, CBI states in the initial
reply to the anticipatory bail application that the same “may be
required” for confronting the applicant with the
material/evidence collected during investigation; verifying the
facts and circumstances of the offence; tracing/recovering
relevant articles/documents/electronic evidence; identifying
the role of other persons, if any; and completing the
investigation in a fair and effective manner.
12. Learned Sr. PP for CBI has accordingly opposed the
application and has relied upon
Devinder Kumar Bansal v.
State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493, to submit that anticipatory
bail in corruption cases cannot be granted as a matter of
course and that the seriousness of the allegations and
requirements of investigation have to be duly considered.
Page no. 4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
However, during the course of arguments it has also been
submitted that as of now the applicant can have no
apprehension of arrest, as the matter is at the initial stage of
investigation, and that the documents are voluminous and it
will take some time to unearth the truth of the matter and no
notice has been issued to the applicant till date to join the
investigation. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the CBI cannot keep the applicant on
tenterhooks for perpetuity, and once FIR has been registered,
the applicant is entitled to have his case for anticipatory bail
considered and if at this stage the investigating agency has not
decided whether they require the applicants custody, let the
applicant be granted a limited right of 3 days prior notice in
order to invoke the right of anticipatory bail before the Court.
13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record,
including the replies filed by CBI.
14. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that allegations
of corruption involving a public servant are serious and that
while considering anticipatory bail the Court cannot proceed
merely on the premise that custodial interrogation has not
presently been demonstrated to be necessary. The nature of the
accusation, material in support thereof, gravity of the offence,
possibility of interference with investigation and the legitimate
requirements of investigation would all be relevant
considerations. CBI claims to have recovered material which,
according to it, indicates irregularities in the recruitment
process, including alterations in records and deviations from
prescribed eligibility criteria. The investigating agency also
Page no. 5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
states that substantial documentary material remains under
scrutiny. Depending upon what emerges during scrutiny of the
records, examination of witnesses and interrogation of the
persons concerned, legitimate investigative requirements may
subsequently arise which cannot presently be anticipated.
However, in the present case, the situation is that the
investigating agency, though having registered the FIR, itself
is not sure whether there is a need for the arrest and custodial
interrogation of the applicant. The applicant also states that he
is not aware of the allegations against him. The CBI has
expressly stated that the record is voluminous and
investigation is at the early stage and could form no definite
opinion on the need for arresting the applicant and therefore, a
decision on the present application either way would prejudice
the applicant or the Investigating Agency.
15. On 17.09.2026, learned Sr. PP for CBI had fairly submitted
before this Court that at that stage it was not clear whether
custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required.
CBI was thereafter specifically afforded an opportunity to
obtain instructions and place its position on record.
16. Even in the additional reply now filed, CBI has not stated that
arrest or custodial interrogation of the applicant is presently
required. The expression employed in the reply is that
custodial interrogation “
may be required”, followed by various
purposes for which such requirement might subsequently
arise. Simultaneously, CBI states that the seized records are
voluminous, their scrutiny is underway and several aspects of
the case remain to be investigated and verified.
Page no. 6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
17. Thus, despite having been specifically called upon to clarify
its position, CBI has not stated that arrest of the applicant is
presently required. Its case is that such necessity may arise
depending upon the further course of investigation.
18. Another circumstance relevant to the limited issue presently
arising is that although the FIR was registered on 15.07.2026,
the applicant had not, till the earlier hearing, been issued any
notice requiring him to join investigation. CBI does state that
attempts were made to trace him at his residence. However, it
is not disputed that the applicant had travelled abroad on
14.07.2026, prior to registration of the FIR, and was in Canada
at the relevant time.
19. The allegation that the applicant did not cooperate with the
earlier administrative Inquiry Committee is a matter which
CBI is entitled to investigate and rely upon in accordance with
law. At the same time, alleged non-cooperation with such
Inquiry Committee cannot, without anything further, be
equated with failure to cooperate with the present criminal
investigation when no notice requiring the applicant to join the
CBI investigation had till then been issued to him.
20. The applicant has since returned to India and has
unequivocally expressed his willingness to join investigation
as and when required. Therefore, the present situation is
neither one where CBI states that immediate arrest is required
nor one where the applicant has disobeyed a direction of the
investigating agency requiring his participation in
investigation.
21. In these circumstances, adjudicating the substantive
Page no. 7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
entitlement of the applicant to anticipatory bail at this stage
would require this Court to decide the matter prematurely.
Moreover, the CBI itself is at the initial stage of investigation
and the material being collected that indicates involvement of
the present accused has not fully been clarified and perhaps
has to be fully analysed and future exigency requiring arrest
may or may not arise. In such set of circumstances, the Court
has to adopt a balance in order that the rights of the applicant
may also be reasonably protected and that the investigation
also may proceed unhampered and right of the Investigating
agency to carry out fair investigation is also secured.
22. In
Alka Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN.
1292/2026, decided on 12.08.2026, 2026 DHC 6582, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi disposed of the application for
anticipatory bail with direction for advance notice of two
weeks so that the applicant could approach the Court of
Sessions for anticipatory bail if so advised. In
Nitesh Kumar v.
State of NCT of Delhi BAIL APPLN 1200/2020 decided on
10.06.2020 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Ld ASJ
had directed that the accused may not be arrested without
permission of the DCP. The Hon’ble High Court modified the
direction and directed that 7 days advance notice be given to
the applicant in order that he may avail his right to file
anticipatory bail.
23. The Court is of the opinion that granting the applicant a 3-day
pre arrest notice in the present case, in order that he may
pursue his remedy for anticipatory bail would be more
judicious and less likely to cause either the applicant or the
Page no. 8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
investigating agency any prejudice. At the present stage, it is
unnecessary to adjudicate his substantive entitlement to
anticipatory bail at a stage when CBI itself has not formed a
definite view that arrest is required. The applicant’s
entitlement to anticipatory bail, should such occasion
subsequently arise, is therefore expressly left open.
24. CBI will remain at liberty to summon and interrogate the
applicant, confront him with material collected during
investigation, require production of material lawfully
obtainable from him and undertake every other investigative
step permissible in law. If, upon further investigation,
circumstances emerge which, in the opinion of the
Investigating Officer, necessitate arrest, nothing in this order
prevents CBI from forming or acting upon such opinion in
accordance with law, subject only to the limited requirement
of advance notice directed hereinafter.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not
consider it necessary to presently adjudicate the applicant’s
entitlement to anticipatory bail on merits.
The application is
accordingly disposed of, without expressing any opinion upon
the merits of the allegations or upon the applicant’s
entitlement to anticipatory bail should such question
subsequently arise, with the following directions: (i) The
applicant shall join investigation as and when required by the
Investigating Officer by written notice and shall cooperate
with the investigation in accordance with law. (ii) In case,
upon further investigation, the Investigating Officer forms an
opinion that arrest of the applicant is required, CBI shall give
Page no. 9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
the applicant three working days’ prior written notice of its
intention to arrest him. (iii) During the aforesaid period, it
shall be open to the applicant to avail such remedy as may be
available to him in accordance with law. (iv) Upon expiry of
the aforesaid period of three working days, the present order
shall not operate as any restraint upon the Investigating
Officer from exercising the powers available in accordance
with law, subject to any order which may meanwhile be
passed by a competent Court. (v) It is clarified that nothing
contained in this order constitutes a finding either that
arrest/custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary or
that the same is unnecessary. If such necessity subsequently
arises, the investigating agency shall be at liberty to act in
accordance with law and the applicant’s entitlement to any
relief sought at that stage shall be considered independently on
the material and circumstances then obtaining.
26. It is further clarified that nothing observed herein shall be
construed as an expression on the merits of the investigation,
the allegations against the applicant or any other accused, or
the evidentiary value of the material collected during
investigation.
27. Application disposed off in terms of the aforesaid directions.
28. Copy of dasti be given to both parties.
29. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Divyang Thakur)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07
Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi
01.10.2026
Page no. 10 of 10
-- 10 of 10 --