The Delhi High Court recently granted the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) request for the custodial interrogation of individuals accused of impersonating CBI officers.

Observing that a deeper conspiracy was at play, the court stressed the need for custodial interrogation to collect crucial evidence and unravel the larger network involved.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case, noted,

“The complaint reveals not an isolated incident of corruption by a government official, but a wide conspiracy involving officials from various departments, operating in nexus to accept bribes and interfere in fair investigations and departmental functioning.”

The CBI had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging the Special Judge’s order dated 15 April 2025. The lower court had earlier denied the CBI’s request for police custody of three accused individuals implicated in a corruption case.

The case originated when, on 7 April 2025, Avnish Kumar solicited a meeting with complainant Nanavaty to finalize a bribe amount. However, Nanavaty, unwilling to proceed with the payment, reported the matter to the CBI.

Upon discreet verification, prima facie evidence emerged against Avnish Kumar, Anil Tanwar, and Ramesh Kumar. Investigations also revealed that Respondent No.3, Jyotimon Dethan, a Department of Revenue official, demanded Rs. 50,000 to influence an ongoing Enforcement Directorate (ED) matter.

Acting swiftly, the CBI laid a trap, catching Avnish Kumar red-handed while accepting Rs. 3.5 lakh on behalf of Tanwar. Kumar also informed Tanwar about receiving the bribe during a call, with Tanwar acknowledging it. Separately, Dethan was arrested after accepting a bribe through GPay and was apprehended from his office at HUDCO Place, New Delhi, on 9 April 2025. Tanwar was arrested the following day.

Although the CBI had sought five days of police custody for the accused on 10 April 2025, the Special Judge remanded them to judicial custody instead, stating further evidence was needed to seek police custody. A subsequent request on 15 April 2025 was also denied, prompting the present petition for 10 days of custody.

Representing the CBI, Special Public Prosecutor Anupam S. Sharma, along with Advocate Prakarsh Airan, argued that custodial interrogation was crucial to unearthing the extensive conspiracy involving multiple departments. They pointed out that the BNSS, 2023 had modified previous provisions, now permitting police custody for up to 40 days within a 60-day investigation window, compared to the earlier CrPC limit of 15 days.

SPP Sharma also highlighted the need to confront Respondent No.2, a senior CBI officer, with the other accused and to examine significant digital evidence.

In defense, Advocate Sandeep Kumar, appearing for the accused, contended that no fresh material existed justifying custodial interrogation and that the CBI was attempting to seek custody without new grounds. He stressed that custodial interrogation should not be misused to compel confessions.

After hearing both sides, the High Court emphasized that the case demonstrated a deep-rooted corruption network involving premier investigative agencies like the CBI and ED.

“It is one of the unique cases of rampant corruption in CBI, ED and such other departments, shaking the entire edifice of our Executive and Investigating machinery whose primary duty is to investigate crime and bring culprits to justice,” the court remarked.

Recognizing that the investigation was still in its infancy, the court observed that custodial interrogation was essential to expose the full conspiracy and recover further evidence. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court underlined that police custody is often critical in cases involving complex conspiracies and grave offenses.

"In cases like the present, where a larger conspiracy is involved, custodial interrogation at the early stage is imperative to uncover the material facts," it added.

The High Court criticized the Special Judge’s earlier refusal to grant police custody, finding that it had obstructed the investigative process. Stressing that courts should refrain from unnecessary interference in lawful investigations, the High Court allowed the CBI's petition.

Appearances:

• 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)