While citing non-cooperation, a Special CBI Court in Lucknow has rejected the bail application of CGST Deputy Commissioner Prabha Bhandari, who is accused in a bribery case of Rs. 70 Lakhs from business entities in Jhansi.
The case on behalf of IRS Prabha Bhandari was argued by Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakraborty.
Legal experts have criticised the order opining that it has infirmities.
Firstly, a key ground for rejection is non cooperation where no opportunity was given to the accused to respond to this allegation by CBI. Also because cooperation does not mandate confession or self-incrimination, a constitutional right.
Secondly, the court remained conspicuously silent on the ultrasound report placed by the Jail Authorities & CBI that the accused is 10 weeks pregnant. This was a factual document and not merely an argument, especially when CBI had earlier expressed misgivings on contradictory medical reports obtained during Judicial Custody. Such an omission, experts argue, reflects a failure to consider relevant material on record and non-application of judicial mind to a vital and humanitarian consideration. The order ignores case law cited on pregnancy passed Supreme Court and High Court including Amanjot Kaur v. State of Punjab; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI have not been distinguished why they are not applicable. CBI didn’t cite any contrary law to deny bail.
Thirdly, non-co-operation charge is based on the refusal of the accused to utter some specific words or sentences during voice-sample which she apprehended would be copy pasted at deficient places in the original recording, to fabricate a new transcript. This was based on legal advise by her counsel. She offered to read any other material like select paras from a newspaper or magazine. This argument is duly recorded in the remand order dated 20/01/2026.
Fourthly, the court relied upon the typed transcript of CBI which was challenged by the accused as inaccurate transcription of recording. Written plea by the accused to play the recording in the open court to verify the correctness, finds no mention in the rejection order.
Fifthly, the order dated 28/01/2026 was never pronounced in the open court on that day itself though the brother of the accused (a pairokar) remained present in the court on 28 & 29 and made multiple queries from the Court clerk. It was never displayed even on the Notice Board nor on the website of the Court till 30th evening.
Lastly, the rejection order is conspicuously vague or silent on the fact that there was no recovery from Ms. Prabha Bhandari. The total of cash recovered after searches at 4 places related to PB was around Rs.1.54 lakhs only and jewelry valued at around Rs. Ten lakhs. Clubbing it with a huge haul running into crores from the Junior staff members, was a travesty.
The entirety of the facts and circumstances, it is felt, indicates that the approach of the Court appears to be conservative. The principle of an accused to be considered innocent till proven guilty and bail and not the jail have been given a go bye , as is the principle laid down in Arnesh Kumar judgement. Legal expert, Advocate Maninderjit Singh Arora, former IRS (Batch 1983) a criminal law expert especially CBI matters, feel that it is a fit case to immediately move the High Court to highlight such infirmities.
