New Delhi: Serious allegations have emerged against police personnel attached to the Sarai Kale Khan police post under Sunlight Colony police station in connection with a phone theft case. The personnel are accused of allegedly arresting and sending an innocent man to jail, presenting another person in place of the main suspect and extorting around ₹27 lakh from a family. Saket Court Judicial Magistrate First Class Divya Leela has taken note of the allegations and directed that the call detail records (CDRs) and CCTV footage linked to the police personnel be preserved. The court has also raised questions over procedural irregularities in the case records.
The police personnel under scrutiny include sub-inspectors Dhananjay Dubey and Deepak, head constables Virendra Singh and Balram, and Makki Hussaini, among others. In orders passed on July 22 and August 5, the court directed that relevant electronic evidence be preserved. The allegations, however, remain subject to investigation and judicial determination.
Dispute began with purchase of an old phone
The complainant, Ruhaif Qureshi, deals in used mobile phones at Gaffar Market in Karol Bagh. According to his complaint, he purchased an iPhone 17 Pro from a man identified as Salman for ₹32,000 on April 22-23. He later sold the phone to a parts dealer on April 28.
The complaint alleges that on the night of May 10, head constable Virendra Singh contacted Qureshi through a WhatsApp call and told him that the phone was stolen, while allegedly warning him of police action. Fearing legal consequences, Qureshi reportedly bought the phone back from the parts dealer and sent it to the airport on May 13. The police allegedly refused to accept it.
Qureshi was subsequently arrested on May 14 and produced before Saket Court on May 15, where he was reportedly sent to three days of police custody. According to the complaint, sub-inspector Deepak allegedly demanded ₹30 lakh from Qureshi’s family member Fazil and threatened to implicate Qureshi and his mother, Seema, in another case if the money was not paid.
Allegation of producing another man in place of suspect
The complaint also refers to a separate sequence of events. A phone theft FIR had allegedly been registered at Sunlight Colony police station on April 19, 2026, following which two men, Shoaib and Sameer, were arrested. The complaint alleges that on May 9, police personnel took the two men to the residence of Salman alias Nadeem. When Salman was not found there, his father, Salim, was allegedly taken to the police post.
The family claims that Salim paid ₹5 lakh under pressure and was allowed to return home that night. Police personnel allegedly subsequently demanded another ₹4 lakh from Salman’s family and asked them to produce another person in Salman’s place. The complaint alleges that a man identified as Zaheer was presented instead of Salman and ₹4 lakh was paid.
Extortion amount allegedly settled at ₹18 lakh
According to the complaint, the alleged demand was later reduced from ₹30 lakh to ₹18 lakh. Of this amount, ₹13 lakh was allegedly handed over in cash inside a vehicle. The complaint further claims that ₹2 lakh was given in cash to sub-inspector Deepak inside a room on May 18, while the remaining ₹3 lakh was allegedly handed over to sub-inspector Dhananjay Dubey on May 20.
Meanwhile, on May 24, the family reportedly received a call from Tihar Jail informing them that Salim’s health had deteriorated and that he was being taken to a hospital associated with Delhi University. When the family reached the hospital, they were allegedly informed that Salim had died. The complaint has linked this sequence of events to the wider allegations and raised questions requiring investigation.
Alleged vandalism and removal of belongings
The complaint also refers to an alleged incident at the family’s residence on May 17. It claims that police personnel brought Salim to the house, where CCTV cameras were allegedly damaged and household belongings were searched or damaged. The family further alleges that an iPhone 13 in white, a passport, a DVR and a large suitcase were taken away.
Court flags procedural lapses in case diary
During the proceedings, the current investigating officer reportedly informed the court that the case had been taken away from the previous investigating officer. The court was also told that the case diary was not properly paginated and had allegedly been prepared without the knowledge of the ACP and station house officer.
The court has now directed preservation of CDRs of the police personnel concerned and CCTV footage relevant to the case. These records could help investigators establish the movements of the personnel, communications between the parties and the sequence of events surrounding the alleged payments.
The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on August 11. The precise role of the police personnel and the validity of the allegations will depend on the evidence gathered during the investigation and the court’s eventual findings.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
