One Unique Case Of Rampant Corruption In CBI, ED, Which Shakes The Entire Edifice Of Our Executive & Investigating Machinery: Delhi HC Grants Custody Of Three Government Officials
The case involves three government officials accused of colluding to demand bribes, pointing to a wider pattern of systemic corruption.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a two-day custodial remand of three government officials, emphasizing that the case involves an alleged deep-rooted conspiracy within multiple investigative and enforcement agencies, including the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The case concerns allegations that the three accused, all government officials, colluded to demand bribes in exchange for offering undue favors and interfering with ongoing investigations. The CBI contended that these were not isolated incidents but appeared to be part of a broader, systemic nexus of corruption involving multiple departments.
A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “It is one of the unique cases of rampant corruption in CBI, ED and such other Departments, which shakes the entire edifice of our Executive and the Investigating machinery which have the primary duty of investigations in crime and bring the culprits to face the Penalty Corruption. From the averments made in the Complaint it emerges that it is not one stand alone case of corruption by the Government official, but it reflects a large conspiracy amongst the officials of various Departments who have in a nexus and take bribes for giving undue advantage to the approaching party or even to impact and interfere in the fair investigations and the functioning of these Government Department. The investigations are still at an infancy and to unearth this larger conspiracy, the interrogation of the three accused is imperative.”
The CBI had earlier challenged a ruling by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, who had rejected its request for remand. The agency argued that the initial investigation revealed crucial evidence warranting immediate and in-depth custodial interrogation of the accused. It submitted that respondent no. 1 was caught in a trap operation while accepting ₹3.5 lakhs from the complainant, allegedly on behalf of respondent no. 2. During a search, authorities recovered multiple identification cards from respondent no. 1, including those purportedly from agencies like the CBI, NCB, and Haryana State Narcotics Bureau—further raising suspicions about impersonation and inter-agency collusion.
Additionally, CBI alleged that respondent no. 3, an officer in the Ministry of Finance's Department of Revenue, demanded a separate bribe of ₹50,000 to influence officers in the ED who were investigating the complainant in a separate matter.
The respondents, however, opposed the remand, claiming that the CBI’s only intent was to obtain a forced confession, which is impermissible under law. They argued that the agency had not presented any substantial documentation or evidence that necessitated custodial interrogation.
The High Court dismissed these objections, stating that custodial interrogation is not inherently aimed at coercing confessions but is often essential in the early stages of complex investigations. Referring to the precedent set in Prakash Gupta vs. State of Delhi, the Court emphasized that the gravity and complexity of an offence are crucial factors in determining whether custodial interrogation is justified. In this case, it found that unravelling the alleged conspiracy required direct and immediate questioning of the accused.
The Court clarified that denying such interrogation would hinder the process of uncovering the full extent of the suspected corruption. It noted, “It is, therefore evident that in certain situations as in the present case which is to unearth the larger conspiracy, the custodial interrogation at the initial stage of investigation to unearth the material facts cannot be denied.”
Concluding that the Special Judge had overlooked key elements and prematurely denied police custody, the High Court reversed that decision. It consequently allowed the CBI two days of custodial interrogation for the three accused, enabling the agency to further its investigation into what may be a far-reaching corruption scandal across several branches of government.
Cause Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Avnish Kumar & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: SPP Anupam S. Sharrma, Advocate Prakarsh Airan, Addl. SPP Alok Kumar Singh
Respondents: Advocates Sandeep Kumar, Gagan Kumar, Harsh Sharma, C. Parkash, Sachin Kumar, Deepak Garg and Rahul Bhagat
