In a stunning courtroom development on May 1, 2025, Chief Judicial Magistrate Deepak Kumar II of Rouse Avenue Court refused to take cognizance of a chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a high-profile bank fraud case. The judge labeled the chargesheet “incomplete,” “casual,” and “without any application of mind.”
The case revolves around allegations made by Kamal Agarwal, Chief Manager of the Punjab National Bank’s Zonal SASTRA Centre in Bhikaji, against JS Designer Ltd and its promoters Mohan Singhal and Anuradha Singhal. The complaint claims the accused siphoned off and diverted bank funds, resulting in wrongful gains and a total loss of ₹66.24 crore to a consortium of banks, including ₹56.24 crore to PNB.
ALSO READ: Call for Cyber Experts: Join FCRF Academy as Trainers and Course Creators
Despite the gravity of the alleged financial crime, the CBI’s investigation appeared “mechanical,” according to the court, and astonishingly excluded interrogation of key accused who have long absconded.
Accused Traced to Dubai, Yet Never Questioned
The most damning aspect of the court’s observation lies in the CBI’s failure to secure the participation of accused Mohan Singhal and Anuradha Singhal. The agency itself admitted the duo left India for Dubai in 2019 and 2020, yet made no effort to compel their cooperation in the investigation.
Judge Kumar questioned why the CBI proceeded to file a chargesheet dated April 3, 2024, when two of the principal accused were never interrogated.
“It is the case of the CBI itself that (A2) and (A3) left India…yet no attempt was made to make them join the investigation,” he noted.
The court expressed shock over the agency’s inaction, especially given that the accused’s locations were known.
“The chargesheet filed in this case stated the ‘address was verified, but the accused is not available,’” the judge said, calling it an unacceptable lapse.
Judiciary Demands Accountability in Financial Crime Probes
This rebuke is the latest instance of courts holding investigative agencies accountable for substandard work in high-stakes financial cases. The court further noted that the IO (Investigating Officer) filed the chargesheet “without completing the investigation,” and it was “forwarded by the concerned SP without any application of mind.”
The court ordered the IO to complete the probe and submit a final, comprehensive report. It also pointed out that the role of the accused Singhal couple should have been thoroughly investigated, which was evidently not done.
The seriousness of the judge’s observations suggests a need for deeper reforms within the CBI’s functioning, especially in cases involving white-collar crime. Meanwhile, the accused remain untraceable, and justice for the defrauded banks remains delayed.
