The Delhi court reprimanded CBI for concealing “something important” in the Rs 2,435 crore bank fraud case; it is an act of “clear-cut defiance and recalcitrance”.

Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal, in a preliminary observation, addressed a case involving CG Power and Industrial Solutions and its former promoter, Gautam Thapar. The case pertains to an alleged fraud that led to a wrongful loss of ₹2,435 crore in public funds, affecting the State Bank of India's Industrial Finance Branch in Mumbai.

According to the judge, "The investigating agency has something material to conceal from the court, to which they want to put a veil of secrecy, so that truth should never come out and see the light of the day and remains embedded in the files, i.e., the crime file”.

On February 10, the court stated that despite explicit instructions in its February 3 order, the CBI did not present the crime files for review.

The court noted that the CBI had enough time to assess and challenge the order if they wished.

The court noted, “Therefore, the non-compliance of the order is an act of clear-cut defiance and recalcitrance on the part of the CBI, which kind of conveys in a subtle manner that they do not care or obey the order(s) of the court, which is a matter of grave concern, same is also contrary to the spirit of Article 21 of The Constitution of India, which ensures fair investigations and consequent fair trial”.

The court instructed the head of the relevant CBI branch to ensure that the investigating officer appears on February 21 with the necessary files, emphasising that this must be done "without fail." The judge stated that without the explanation requested by the court, he felt "handicapped" and unable to "form an opinion" on whether additional investigation should be ordered in the case, as well as on reviewing key aspects that the agency might have overlooked.

At first glance, the court observed that both the main and supplementary charge sheets indicated that the investigation was not conducted properly but rather in a "perfunctory" and casual manner.

The court said that the investigation must be conducted fairly and transparently.

As per the court, “After the investigation is over, the final report is filed in the court, then the court has every right to see as to what had transpired from the registration of the FIR till the culmination of the chargesheet/final report including the crime file, which is part of the investigations… Any concealment or non-production of the crime file will only enhance the suspicion that the investigating agency has probably something to blot out from the court”.

The court acknowledged that the case was of “huge magnitude, impinging upon the honest taxpayers of the country and the state exchequer”.

It added, "Non-production of the crime files may lead to a prima facie inference that the probe agency was concealing something important which they do not probably want to come out in open, which itself per se makes out the existence of unusual and extraordinary circumstances, which warrants perusal of the crime file by the court.”

In its chargesheet, the CBI claimed that the accused entities misused large bank loans by redirecting them to related parties, making corresponding adjustments in their financial records. The investigation further revealed that the accused secured loans against securities without informing banks about existing credit facilities obtained from other financial institutions, the agency stated.

The accused obtained funds "by misrepresentation and falsification of account books, entries and vouchers," the report stated.

SBI is said to have had a 12.81% exposure to the ₹2,435 crore default, representing a consortium of 11 other lender banks. Among them, Yes Bank had the second-largest exposure at 11.75%, according to reports.

The accused company operates industrial and power systems facilities in India, Indonesia, and Hungary.