Delhi court denies bail to CBI Inspector in corruption case, sends to custody

A Delhi court remanded CBI Inspector Deepak Phalswal to 14-day judicial custody in a corruption case. He allegedly demanded a bribe to settle a case. The court rejected his bail plea, citing the seriousness of the allegations and nascent stage of investigation.

A Rouse Avenue court of Delhi on Saturday remanded Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Inspector to 14 days of judicial custody and rejected his bail plea in a corruption case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The order was passed by ACJM Mayank Goel at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex on March 14 while dealing with applications concerning the accused officer, including the CBI's request for further custody and the accused's plea for regular bail.

Details of the Allegations

According to the prosecution, the case was registered against Inspector Deepak Phalswal under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), based on a complaint filed by Shubham Mishra, a resident of Faridabad.

The complaint alleged that on January 22, 2026, the accused Phalswal visited Mishra's residence and informed him that a complaint had been registered against him with the CBI. He allegedly told the complainant that he would have to appear at the CBI office near Lodhi Colony and began threatening and intimidating him.

It was further alleged that the accused initially demanded a bribe of ₹2 crore to settle the matter. When the complainant refused, the demand was gradually reduced. The officer allegedly forcibly took ₹50,000 from the complainant and later asked him to pay ₹75,000 every month, stating that either he or someone on his behalf would collect the money.

The complaint also states that Phalswal repeatedly contacted the complainant through FaceTime calls, instructing him not to call directly, as such calls could not be traced.

Court Proceedings and Arguments

During the investigation, Phalswal was arrested on March 10, 2026, and produced before the court the next day. The court had earlier remanded him to police custody till March 13.

CBI's Submission

The CBI submitted that the allegations against the accused are serious and relate to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification while discharging official duties. It further argued that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, several witnesses are yet to be examined, and crucial evidence is yet to be collected. The agency also expressed apprehension that since the accused is a CBI officer and an influential person, he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.

Defence's Argument

Counsel for the accused argued that the case suffers from inconsistencies, pointing out that the complaint was dated March 9, 2025, whereas the alleged incident occurred on January 22, 2026. The defence also contended that the accused has no prior criminal antecedents and that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with legal requirements under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Supreme Court judgments.

The defence further argued that the evidence in the case is largely documentary and electronic, and therefore, there was no possibility of tampering with evidence.

The Court's Order

After hearing both sides, the court held that custodial interrogation is an important tool of investigation and that the allegations against the accused are grave in nature. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the stage of the investigation, the court observed that releasing the accused on bail at this stage could allow him to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

"The bail application is accordingly dismissed," the court said while remanding the accused to judicial custody for 14 days till March 28, 2026.

The accused was represented by Hemant Shah, Karan Mann, Vikas Malik, Akash Chauhan, Vishal Mann, and Jatin Dabas. During the proceedings, V.K. Ojha, DLA, and Anubhav Shukla, Senior Public Prosecutor, appeared for the CBI along with DSP Anmol Sachan.

The court also recorded that the investigating officer's request to correct the complainant's name in the FIR from "Anant Mittal" to "Shubham Mishra" was taken on record as an informational clarification.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)