Back
CBI's 13-Year Manhunt Fiasco: Delhi HC Frees Accused in ₹2 Crore Grant Fraud
In a pointed critique of investigative lapses, the on , granted to R. Usha @ G. Usha, the lone remaining accused in custody in a CBI corruption case involving fraudulent procurement of over ₹2 crore in government grants. Justice Girish Kathpalia lambasted the for taking 13 years to arrest her after declaring her a , rejecting their primary opposition ground of .
From FIR to 2025 Arrest: A Timeline of Absconding and Trial Progress
The case, registered as RC No. 0031(A)/ at , alleges that Usha, through her NGO, conspired with co-accused to cheat the government under , read with . The funds were allegedly siphoned via forged documents.
While the FIR dates back to , Usha absconded, leading to her proclamation as an offender. Prosecution evidence proceeded in her absence, with 76 of 109 witnesses already examined by the time of her arrest on . All co-accused had long been released on bail, and she has remained in since arrest, as investigation did not require her presence.
Defense: Trial Far Advanced, No Flight Threat
Usha's counsel— , , and —argued that the protracted trial stage (76 witnesses done) and her family ties, including a husband serving as Inspector in the , negated any . They highlighted CBI's apparent disinterest, noting the Investigating Officer (IO) Inspector Davinder's absence from hearings.
CBI's Lone Stand: History of Absconding Equals Future Flight
, assisted by , opposed bail solely on Usha's 13-year absconding period, arguing it posed a real risk of her fleeing justice again. No other grounds—such as tampering or case merits—were raised. The SPP admitted unawareness of remaining witnesses' relevance to Usha's role, underscoring the IO's non-appearance even post-lunch.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Delay Speaks Volumes on Prosecution Zeal
Justice Kathpalia found CBI's stance unpersuasive. No precedents were cited, but the court applied core bail principles under , emphasizing liberty absent compelling reasons for denial. Key factors included the advanced trial stage, co-accused freedom, and Usha's family anchor. Critically, the judge noted CBI's own 13-year delay undermined their claim, interpreting it as evidence of lax pursuit.
The IO's absence further signaled disinterest:
"It seems that CBI is not seriously interested to oppose this
."
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On CBI's Investigative Apathy :
"The fact that it took 13 years for a premier central investigating agency to even apprehend a
speaks volumes about their interest or lack thereof in arresting the accused/applicant."
-
Rejecting Flight Fears :
"As submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant, her husband is employed with
as Inspector and it is not reasonable to apprehend that she would flee."
-
Prosecution's Sole Ground Dismantled :
"The only ground on which the bail is opposed is that it took 13 years for CBI to apprehend the accused/applicant. No other ground of opposition has been raised."
-
Liberty Prevails :
"Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant."
Bail Terms and Broader Ripples
Usha must furnish a of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount, to the trial court's satisfaction. The order was expedited to the jail superintendent.
This ruling reinforces that prolonged agency delays can erode opposition to bail, even against proclaimed offenders, potentially influencing similar corruption probes where trials lag. It underscores judicial scrutiny of prosecution commitment, cautioning agencies like CBI against over-relying on past absconding without fresh threats.
(Case: )
