Corruption In ED, CBI And Other Govt Departments Shakes Entire Edifice Of Investigating Machinery : Delhi High Court

While granting remand of three government officials to the CBI, the Delhi High Court has observed that the allegation of conspiracy among officials of CBI, ED and other government departments for taking bribes “shakes the entire edifice” of the investigating machinery and thus necessitates interrogation by the investigating agency.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that “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 Court was considering CBI's challenge to the Special Judge's (PC Act) order rejecting its request for remand of three accused. The accused were booked under Section 61 (2) (criminal conspiracy) of the BNS read with Section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), 7A (taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means), 12 (Punishment for abetment of offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the CBI's case that the respondents/accused demanded bribe/illegal gratification from the complainant. As per CBI, respondent no. 1 introduced the complaint to a person as a CBI officer to decide the bribe of Rs. 35 lakh to be paid to help the complainant in his cases, where he was an accused in one case and a complainant in another. CBI also alleged that respondent no. 3, an officer posted in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India also demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000 for influencing ED Officers in the case related to the complainant.CBI submitted that during the investigation, it laid a trap where respondent no. 1 was caught red-handed while accepting an undue advantage of Rs.3.5 lakhs from the complainant, on behalf of respondent no.2. The CBI alleged that during the search of vehicle of respondent no.1, identity cards of various Departments including CBI, NCB, Haryana State Narcotics were recovered. CBI submitted that the circumstances of the case prima facie point towards a large-scale conspiracy spanning multiple departments and agencies and thus, custodial interrogation of respondents is required to carry out an effective and meaningful investigation. It argued that the Special Judge (PC Act) overlooked the crucial facts and material evidence that emerged during the initial stage of investigation and wrongly declined the police custody.On the other hand, the respondents argued that CBI was seeking custody merely to extract a confession from them, which is not permissible. They contended that there were no documents or a substantive investigation, which necessitated custodial interrogation.Pursuing the material on record, the High Court noted that the case pertained to widespread corruption in government agencies and thus, to uncover the conspiracy among officials who took bribes, police custody is necessary. It noted that custodial interrogation at the initial stage of interrogation is needed and observed “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 did not agree with the respondents' contention that the interrogation was for extracting a confession. It said “To say that the interrogation is intended for extracting a confessional statement, is not correct because as has been observed in the case of Prakash Gupta vs. State of Delhi MANU/DE/2052/2017 while considering the aspect of Police Custody the gravity and the seriousness of the offence is of primary consideration. Custodial interrogation of a Petitioner when required to unearth the conspiracy, cannot be denied.”With these observations, the Court granted two days custody of the three accused to the CBI. Case title: CBI vs. Avnish Kumar & OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 487Click Here To Read/Download Order

Corruption In ED, CBI And Other Govt Departments Shakes Entire Edifice Of Investigating Machinery : Delhi High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags