Brijender Gaur, Panchkula
Jun 06, 2025 06:36 AM IST
CBI special judge Rajeev Goyal dismissed the agency’s remand application and underscored that the arrest violated legal procedure.
A special CBI court in Panchkula has declared the arrest of Tanoj Yadav, superintendent in the anti-evasion branch of CGST Faridabad, and Aakash Rohilla, a data entry operator, as illegal. The court ordered their immediate release, citing the CBI’s failure to provide them with written grounds of arrest at the time of their detention on June 3.
CBI special judge Rajeev Goyal dismissed the agency’s remand application and underscored that the arrest violated legal procedure. Referring to Supreme Court and high court rulings, the judge said that supplying written grounds for arrest is essential to ensure the accused can consult legal counsel, challenge custody, and seek bail.
“The written grounds for arrest were not given to the accused, which is a violation of their legal rights as laid down by the apex court. Therefore, the arrests are illegal, and the accused must be released immediately,” the court observed.
The bribery case
The arrests followed a bribery case registered by the CBI on June 2 under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was based on a complaint by Manoj Malik of Ballabhgarh, who alleged that officials from the CGST Faridabad office visited his wife’s firm on May 29, threatened to issue a ₹1.78 crore GST notice for bogus documents, and demanded a ₹50 lakh bribe—later negotiated down to ₹10 lakh.
Unwilling to comply, Malik approached the CBI. A trap was laid, and on June 3, Aakash Rohilla was caught red-handed accepting ₹10 lakh outside the CGST office. He was allegedly collecting the bribe on behalf of inspector Bhagat Singh and superintendent Tanoj Yadav. Both Rohilla and Yadav were arrested, while three other accused—Bhagat Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, and Lalit—remain absconding.
During court proceedings, defense counsel KP Singh opposed the CBI’s plea for remand, arguing that the arrests were unlawful due to the absence of written grounds, as required by law. The court upheld the argument and ordered the release of the two accused.
