Pregnant IRS Officer Prabha Bhandari Moves Supreme Court Against Bail Rejection in CBI Bribery Case; Questions Evidence and “Control Call” Legality

The Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Prabha Bhandari has approached the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of her bail plea by the Allahabad High Court in a corruption case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Special Leave Petition (SLP), filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, assails the High Court’s order dated March 10, 2026, which denied her bail in connection with an alleged Rs. 70 lakh bribery case.

Prabha Bhandari, who was serving as Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Jhansi has been accused under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case stems from a CBI trap operation conducted in December 2025, following a GST search on two business entities where alleged irregularities were detected.

CBI’s Case: Alleged Bribe to Settle GST Matter

According to the prosecution, CGST officials conducted a search on December 18, 2025, at premises linked to M/s Jai Ambey Plywood and M/s Jai Durga Hardware, where substantial undeclared stock and incriminating documents were allegedly found. It is claimed that the business owners attempted to settle the matter through intermediaries, including an advocate and certain CGST officials.

The CBI alleges that a conspiracy was formed involving multiple accused persons, including CGST officials, to demand and accept an undue advantage of ₹70 lakh to resolve the GST issue. A trap was laid on December 30, 2025, during which cash was allegedly recovered from co-accused individuals.

However, notably, Prabha Bhandari was not present at the scene of the trap and was reportedly travelling to Delhi by train at the time of the incident.

Key Evidence: “Control Call” Under Scrutiny

The prosecution’s case against Prabha Bhandari hinges primarily on a “control call” allegedly made by a co-accused to inform her about the receipt of the bribe amount. The High Court relied on the transcript of this call while rejecting her bail plea.

However, the petitioner has strongly contested the evidentiary value of this material. The SLP points out material discrepancies between transcripts presented before the trial court and the High Court. It also highlights that despite providing her voice sample, the identity of the voice in the recording has not been conclusively established.

Further, the petitioner contends that her application seeking to play the audio recording in court was neither allowed nor rejected, effectively stalling her ability to challenge the evidence. The CBI, it is alleged, opposed the request to play the audio.

No Recovery, No Direct Evidence: Defence of Prabha Bhandari

The petition emphasizes that no incriminating material or cash was ever recovered from Prabha Bhandari. Searches conducted at locations linked to her reportedly yielded no evidence. It is further argued that there is no direct proof of demand or acceptance of bribe attributable to her.

The petitioner has also questioned the admissibility of statements made by co-accused persons while in custody, arguing that such statements are barred under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

The statement of co- accused who have spoken about role of Prabaha was in custody and thus, it is inadmissible and thus, there cannot be any incriminatory evidence against her

Additionally, the petition argues that the alleged “control call” itself may be legally untenable under evidentiary provisions, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Alleged Procedural Irregularities and Contradictions

The SLP highlights several inconsistencies in the CBI’s narrative. One key contention relates to discrepancies in dates concerning the control call and trap proceedings, raising doubts about the sequence of events. The petition also notes that the petitioner’s phone number was not among those officially under surveillance during the relevant period, suggesting she was not initially a suspect.

It is also argued that Prabha Bhandari had no role in authorizing the GST search that triggered the alleged bribery chain, and her implication appears to be an afterthought without credible supporting material.

Personal Grounds: Pregnancy and Health Concerns

A significant aspect of the petition relates to Prabha Bhandari’s medical condition. She is a lactating mother of a one-year-old child and is currently 15 weeks pregnant. The plea states that she has already been hospitalized during custody and that continued incarceration poses serious risks to her health and that of her unborn child.

The petition underscores that her prolonged detention since December 31, 2025, without commencement of trial, violates her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Delay in Trial and Right to Bail

Citing judicial precedents, the petitioner argues that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, making continued custody unjustified. The plea stresses that prolonged incarceration without trial undermines the presumption of innocence and constitutional safeguards.

Supreme Court to Examine Key Legal Questions

The case is expected to raise important legal questions before the Supreme Court, including the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence such as control calls, the evidentiary value of co-accused statements, and the balance between investigation and personal liberty—particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals such as pregnant women.

The outcome of Prabha Bhandari’s petition could have wider implications on how courts assess bail in corruption cases involving indirect or circumstantial evidence.