{"id":380637,"date":"2026-04-09T17:00:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T11:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=380637"},"modified":"2026-04-10T17:36:19","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T12:06:19","slug":"radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi:<\/span> In a case arising out of alleged corruption in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) procurement process, involving accusations of illegal gratification of ₹10 lakhs supported primarily by intercepted telephonic conversations, a Single Judge Bench of Sushant Changotra, J.<\/span>, examined the admissibility and evidentiary value of such electronic evidence on the touchstone of statutory safeguards under Section 5(2)<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a> read with Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951 and the requirements of proof under the Evidence Act and held that,<\/p>\n

“Mere production or exhibition of interception orders does not amount to proof, and in the absence of examination of the competent authority and compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards particularly placement before the Review Committee the interception orders stood unproved and invalid, rendering the resultant recordings inadmissible in evidence.”<\/p>\n

Holding that the prosecution’s case, resting substantially on such inadmissible and unreliable material, failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance, and criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted all the accused of charges under Section 120-B<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) read with Sections 11<\/a> and 12<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

An FIR had been registered by the CBI against Radhey Shyam Sharma, Director (Provisioning), MHA along with Directors of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. (ATL) and others, alleging that they were indulging in corrupt practices to secure contracts for ballistic protection products. On 3 July 2009, MHA had floated a tender for procurement of 59,000 light-weight bulletproof jackets, and following allegations of manipulation in trials, the earlier evaluation had been cancelled and a retrial had been ordered on ATL’s complaint. During this period, ATL had remained in regular contact with the accused public servant, who had allegedly provided updates and extended undue favours in lieu of illegal gratification.<\/p>\n

On 22 January 2010, a CD had been received by the Anti-Corruption Branch, and on 11 March 2010 an FIR had been registered, later transferred to the CBI and merged with the present case. On 24 January 2010, a demand of ₹10 lakhs had allegedly been made, which had been arranged through a fictitious transaction by issuing a cheque of ₹11,91,240 on 27 January 2010 in favour of Varun Associates; the amount had thereafter been converted into cash and about ₹10.44 lakhs had been delivered to the accused. During investigation, phones had been intercepted, searches had been conducted and the accused had been arrested on 29 April 2010; jewellery worth ₹9.75 lakhs and cash had been recovered, which remained unexplained. Further, voice samples had been collected and CFSL report dated 1 September 2011 had been obtained.<\/p>\n

It had further been found that though the accused had official dealings with the company in earlier procurements, no specific favour had been shown in the tender in question, and deviations noticed were general in nature. After investigation, sanction had been obtained, charge-sheet filed cognizance taken and charges had been framed under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 11<\/a> and 12<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

The Court examined allegations under Sections 11<\/a> and 12<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>, and Section 120-B IPC against Radhey Shyam Sharma, then Director (Provisioning), MHA, and co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded and received a bribe of ₹10 lakhs, misused company vehicles, and engaged in a criminal conspiracy to favour Anjani Technoplast Ltd. in procurement processes.<\/p>\n

The Court first acknowledged that the accused was a public servant and had dealt with relevant files, including notings and representations concerning the Company, establishing his involvement in the procurement process. Valid sanction for prosecution under Section 19<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> had also been granted and duly reflected due application of mind.<\/p>\n

Regarding criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, the Court reiterated that conspiracy is often hatched in secrecy and may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but there must be a physical manifestation of agreement. The prosecution relied on allegations that Radhey Shyam Sharma provided regular updates in return for favours. However, the charge-sheet itself recorded that investigation disclosed no role of the accused in favouring the company, and no witness, including the IO, could substantiate the allegation. Consequently, the Court held that the case of criminal conspiracy lacked evidentiary support.<\/p>\n

The alleged demand and receipt of ₹10 lakhs rested primarily on intercepted telephone conversations. The Court emphasised that interception orders under the Telegraph Act and Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules must be placed before the Review Committee within seven days, and failure to do so renders them invalid. In the present case, the orders were neither verified for compliance nor proven to be genuine, with the author of the orders unexamined. The Court held the interception evidence inadmissible, relying on PUCL<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (1997) 1 SCC 301<\/a>; Jatinder Pal Singh<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 135<\/a>; Vinit Kumar<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155<\/a> and P. Kishore<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3053<\/a>. Voice recordings were also held unreliable due to incomplete chain of custody, inability of witnesses to identify voices, and selective seizure of calls. The prosecution also failed to connect mobile numbers to the accused through CAFs or certified CDRs, further weakening the evidence.<\/p>\n

Regarding generation and delivery of cash, key witnesses denied participation, and documents such as cheques and account statements were uncertified and unverified. The alleged recovery of jewellery on 30 April 2010 was rendered irrelevant because the prosecution failed to prove demand or receipt of the bribe. Search and seizure lacked proper documentation, search memos, site plans, and witness testimony, and the ₹25,000 recovered could not be linked to the alleged ₹10 lakhs. Allegations of use of vehicles belonging to ATL (P) Ltd. were unsupported, as all driver witnesses turned hostile and logbooks were unverified.<\/p>\n

The Court also highlighted investigative lapses, including merging prior FIRs without authority, raising doubts regarding bias. Considering contradictions, hostile witnesses, inadmissible evidence, and broken chains of proof, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h3>\n

Accordingly, Radhey Shyam Sharma and other co-accused were acquitted of all charges under Sections 11<\/a> and 12<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>, and Section 120-B IPC. Their bail and surety bonds under Section 437-A<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) were directed to remain in force for six months.<\/p>\n

[CBI<\/span> v. Radhey Shyam Sharma<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 19<\/a>, decided on 19-3-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Defendant:<\/span> Harsh K. Sharma, Vaibhavi Sharma, Lakshya Prashar, Kashish Jain, Ujjwal Krishna Ranjeet Singh, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"prevention<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and must prove the allegations by oral or documentary evidence forming a complete chain of circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67541,"featured_media":380643,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4721],"tags":[2664,10481,41455,102103,102102,35024,61759,102104,102101],"class_list":["post-380637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-district-court","tag-Bail","tag-cbi","tag-delhi-district-court","tag-radhey-shyam-sharma","tag-rouse-avenue-courts","tag-section-120-b-ipc","tag-section-437-a-crpc","tag-ss-11-and-12-of-the-prevention-of-corruption-act-1988","tag-sushan-changotra-special-judge-pc-act-cbi"],"yoast_head":"\nRadhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case |SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case, intercepted calls inadmissible due to non-compliance with Telegraph Rules and failure to prove demand and conspiracy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case, intercepted calls inadmissible due to non-compliance with Telegraph Rules and failure to prove demand and conspiracy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-09T11:30:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-10T12:06:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/\",\"name\":\"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case |SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-09T11:30:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-10T12:06:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"description\":\"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case, intercepted calls inadmissible due to non-compliance with Telegraph Rules and failure to prove demand and conspiracy\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquittal case\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\",\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Malika Bhola\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/malika-bhola\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case |SCC Times","description":"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case, intercepted calls inadmissible due to non-compliance with Telegraph Rules and failure to prove demand and conspiracy","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy","og_description":"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case, intercepted calls inadmissible due to non-compliance with Telegraph Rules and failure to prove demand and conspiracy","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-09T11:30:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-10T12:06:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Malika Bhola","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Malika Bhola","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/","name":"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case |SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-09T11:30:41+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-10T12:06:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"description":"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquitted in MHA procurement bribery case, intercepted calls inadmissible due to non-compliance with Telegraph Rules and failure to prove demand and conspiracy","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Radhey Shyam Sharma acquittal case"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/radhey-shyam-sharma-acquitted-in-mha-procurement-bribery-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rouse Avenue Court Acquits Radhey Shyam Sharma in \u20b910 Lakh Procurement Bribery Case for Failure to Prove Demand and Conspiracy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1","name":"Malika Bhola","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Malika Bhola"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/malika-bhola\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Radhey-Shyam-Sharma-acquittal-case.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":288332,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/02\/delhi-liquor-policy-case-district-court-denies-bail-to-manish-sisodia-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":380637,"position":0},"title":"Delhi Court denies bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Excise Policy Case","author":"Ridhi","date":"April 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi Court concluded that Manish Sisodia played the most important role in the said criminal conspiracy in the liquor policy case, being deeply involved in the formulation and implementation of policy ensuring the alleged objectives.\u00a0\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-378.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":272707,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/31\/delhi-court-rouse-avenue-district-court-denies-bail-chitraramakrishna-managingdirector-national-stock-exchange-money-laundering-corruption-telephone-tapping-illegal-legalupdates-legalnews-legalresearc\/","url_meta":{"origin":380637,"position":1},"title":"Delhi Court denies bail to Chitra Ramakrishna former MD NSE, for alleged active involvement in illegal interception of telephone calls of NSE employees","author":"Editor","date":"August 31, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case relating to illegal interception\/monitoring of telephone calls of National Stock Exchange \u2018NSE' employees by iSec Services Pvt. Ltd, a privately owned company under the guise of contract of Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities, whose approval was given by Chitra Ramakrishna (\u2018applicant')\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325374,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/29\/delhi-excise-policy-scam-rouse-avenue-court-sends-arvind-kejriwal-judicial-custody-till-july-12-cbi-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":380637,"position":2},"title":"[Delhi Excise Policy Scam] Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court sends Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody till July 12 in CBI case","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail by the Trial Court in the money laundering case on 20-06-2024. However, the Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on the grant of bail the following day after the ED moved a plea. Following this, he was arrested by the CBI on 26-06-2024 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue District Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274567,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/27\/delhi-court-transfers-case-of-aap-leader-satyender-jain-on-the-request-of-enforcement-directorate-due-to-likelihood-of-probable-bias\/","url_meta":{"origin":380637,"position":3},"title":"Delhi Court transfers case of AAP leader Satyender Jain on the request of Enforcement Directorate due to likelihood of probable bias","author":"Editor","date":"September 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, Delhi: In a case filed by Enforcement Directorate (\u2018petitioner') seeking transfer of the case titled \u2018Directorate of Enforcement v Satyender Kumar Jain in CC No. 23\/2022', relating to interim bail application of Satyender Jain, Aam Aadmi Party Minister (\u2018respondent'), from the Court of Ms.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276795,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/05\/delhi-court-compelling-accused-to-give-his-system-password-to-io-police-violates-article-203-and-s-1612-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":380637,"position":4},"title":"Delhi Court| Compelling accused to give his system password to IO\/Police violates Article 20(3) and S 161(2) CrPC","author":"Editor","date":"November 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case filed by Central Bureau of Investigation questioning the power of investigating agency (Police) to seek password (user ID) of the computer system seized from the accused along with password of a Tally Software which was being used by the accused\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":323662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/05\/delhi-court-refuses-interim-bail-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal\/","url_meta":{"origin":380637,"position":5},"title":"[Liquor Excise Policy scam] Delhi Court refuses to grant interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal","author":"Editor","date":"June 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court had granted him interim bail till 01-06-2024 considering the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections and he had surrendered on 02-06-2024.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue District Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Rouse-Avenue-District-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67541"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=380637"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380637\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":380797,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380637\/revisions\/380797"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/380643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=380637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=380637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=380637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}