Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, allowed a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking the remand of individuals accused of impersonating CBI officers. The court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the broader conspiracy and collect further evidence related to the fraudulent activities committed by the accused individuals. 

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “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 CBI filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petition challenged the Special Judge’s order dated 15 April 2025, which denied police custody of three accused involved in a corruption case registered by the CBI. On 7 April 2025, Avnish Kumar asked Nanavaty to meet again the next day to finalize the bribe amount. Nanavaty, unwilling to pay, informed the CBI branch for legal action.

After discreet verification, the CBI found prima facie evidence against Avnish Kumar, Anil Tanwar, and Ramesh Kumar. It also emerged that Respondent No.3, Jyotimon Dethan, an official posted at the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, had demanded Rs. 50,000 to influence an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.

During the investigation, the CBI laid a trap. Respondent No.1, Avnish Kumar, was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 3.5 lakh from Nanavaty on behalf of Anil Tanwar. Kumar called Tanwar to inform him about receiving the bribe, and Tanwar acknowledged it during the call.

The CBI also found that Jyotimon Dethan met Nanavaty and demanded Rs. 50,000, which was paid through GPay. Dethan was arrested from his office at HUDCO Place, New Delhi, on 9 April 2025. Anil Tanwar was arrested on 10 April 2025.

The CBI requested police custody of the accused for 5 days on 10 April 2025. However, the Special Judge deferred the decision, stating that police custody could be sought if further evidence was collected. The respondents were remanded to judicial custody instead. Later, on 15 April 2025, the CBI again requested police custody, but it was denied. Therefore, the CBI filed this petition seeking police custody for 10 days.

The CBI, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Anupam S. Sharma with Advocate Prakarsh Airan, argued that police custody was necessary for a thorough investigation. It was emphasized that the case involved a conspiracy among officials from various departments, and custodial interrogation would help expose the full network. The CBI also pointed out that recent changes in law (BNSS, 2023) allowed police custody up to 40 days during a 60-day investigation period, unlike the earlier 15-day limit under the old CrPC.

The CBI expressed concern that the denial of police custody halted their investigation. It was argued that Respondent No.2, a senior CBI officer, needed to be confronted with other accused persons for an effective investigation. SPP Sharma also submitted that more digital evidence needed to be examined, and custodial interrogation was important for this.

However, Advocate Sandeep Kumar, representing the accused individuals, argued that no documents or fresh evidence existed that required custodial interrogation. It was argued that the Special Judge had rightly observed that the CBI had no new evidence for confrontation. It was also argued that custodial interrogation should not be used to extract confessions.

The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the case reflected a deep-rooted conspiracy involving corruption in major investigating agencies like CBI and ED. It was not an isolated case but pointed towards a nexus among officials from different departments.

“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”, the court noted. 

The court noted that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy. “The investigations are still at an infancy and to unearth this larger conspiracy, the interrogation of the three accused is imperative”, the court remarked. 

The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments which stated that police custody is crucial in cases involving grave offences and complex conspiracies. Custodial interrogation could help recover hidden evidence, uncover further accused persons, and protect the integrity of the investigation.

“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”, the court added. 

The court criticized the earlier denial of police custody, stating that it hindered a fair and thorough investigation. It emphasized that the courts should not interfere in the lawful investigative process unless there were strong reasons. Accordingly, the court allowed the plea. 

For CBI: Special Public Prosecutor Anupam S. Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor Alok Kumar Singh and Advocate Prakarsh Airan
For Accused: Advocates Sandeep Kumar, Gagan Kumar, Harsh Sharma, C. Parkash, Sachin Kumar, Deepak Garg and Rahul Bhagat
Case Title: CBI v Avnish Kumar (CRL.M.C.2816/2025)