Addl. DG, DRI has been has been arrested in a Bribery Case.

It is important to note instead to grating Police Custody or to CBI Custody, vacation bench / Duty Magistrate has sent the accused to Judicial Custody with the following observations. 

Court not convinced that PC (CBI Custody) is at all required. Remanded  straight to JC. To be produced before regular Magistrate on 6th, Monday after Courts reopen

Arguments were heated. Sparks flew. Mr Chandrashekhar was heard by Duty Magistrate who emphasized that CBI has been used to scuttle a much larger fraud involving nearly ₹ 2000 crores of export benefits.  He produced letters written to higher ups which were not acted upon.

Mr. M S Arora, former PC and Mr. Rakesh Chitkara appeared before the Court to argue that he has been framed to remove him from investigations. Custody for 48 hours will lead to his automatic suspension.

Highlights 
1. Court was informed that Sh. Chander Shekhar is victim of conspiracy as he was investigating major fraud of ₹ 2000 crores and DGRI and DGGSTI were not following up on his reports.

2. Anup Joshi co accused  who provided money to another co accused for furtber delivery to Chandershekhar denied even knowing Chander Shekhar.

3. Third Co accused Dhanda stated he was to go to Dubai was forced by CBI to take money to Chander Shekhar  from Delhi to Ludhiana.

4. Court declined to give police custody as no ground for same was discernible and granted judicial custody till 6 th Jan 2020.

As per the sources, the Addl. DG DRI (the accursed) has written a secret letter the higher authority for further guidance and direction to make an investigation of fraud involving about ₹ 2000 of GST evasion by way of Circular Trading and fake invoicing. 

The petitioner/ Accursed argued before the Court that, higher authorities did not take any action on such secret note. 

Inputs from: Mr. Rakesh Chitkara, Advocate

 

Judicial custody applied where investigative agency failed to demonstrate necessity for police or CBI custodial interrogation. The magistrate refused the investigating agency's request for custodial interrogation, finding insufficient grounds for police/CBI custody and remanding the accused to judicial custody pending further production. The accused and co accused presented conflicting accounts-one alleging he had been investigating a larger fraud and that superiors failed to act-while defence counsel warned of administrative consequences arising from custody. The magistrate applied the requirement that custodial remand be justified by demonstrable investigative necessity rather than allegation alone.