DJB scam: Ankit Shrivastava challenges 'illegal' arrest in Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the ACB on Ankit Shrivastava's plea challenging his arrest in the DJB tender scam. His counsel argued the arrest was illegal, citing illegal detention and no new material for the arrest.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on a plea moved on behalf of Ankit Shrivastava. He challenged his arrest, calling it illegal, and sought his immediate release from custody. He has been arrested in a case linked to the alleged Delhi Jal Board (DJB) STP Tender scam. He has been remanded to judicial custody after interrogation by ACB till September 3. Former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain has also been arrested in this case.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee issued a notice to the ACB and sought a response on the petition and listed the same for hearing on September 30. The matter was mentioned by Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj for an urgent hearing. Thereafter, the matter was marked to the bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee.

Plea Challenges Legality of Arrest

The counsel for the accused submitted that from 10:00 am on August 18, Ankit Shrivastava was illegally detained at the office of ACB and was not at liberty to leave. It was further submitted that Shrivastava was made to wait through the entire day and it was only at about 12:30 AM on 19.08.2026, 14 and a half hours after he had entered the ACB police station, that he was handed a document titled "Grounds of Arrest".

Advocate Bhardwaj argued that during this period, neither Petitioner was confronted with any material nor were any questions put across for the purpose of investigation. He also argued that as per the grounds of arrest, there is no new material or any change in circumstances which has been recovered or come into the custody of the investigating officer (IO) after August 5, 2026, on the basis of which the IO formed an opinion that there is necessity and reason to arrest the petitioner.

It is a clear mandate of law that once, on the basis of material, an opinion has been formed by the IO that the arrest is not necessary, he under no circumstances can change his opinion without there being any change in circumstances or fresh material, the counsel submitted. The IO arrested the Petitioner by changing his earlier opinion; therefore, the arrest is illegal, as the same is against the mandate of law.

Role of the Accused

Ankit Shrivastava was a consultant with the Delhi Jal Board. It is alleged that some of his actions were within the scope of his duties. He allegedly shared information (corrigendum) with the owner of a private firm. (ANI)

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