New Delhi: Anil Tanwar, the CBI’s prosecutor, and two other people detained in a corruption case were refused police custody remand by the Rouse Avenue court. On Tuesday night, the three were placed into judicial custody.

After hearing the attorneys’ arguments and counterarguments, Special CBI Judge Mukesh Kumar denied police custody to Anil Tanwar, Avnish Kumar, and Jyotimon Dethan.

“In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration facts and circumstances, the prayer of the investigating agency seeking police custody is declined,” a special court ruled on April 15.

The three defendants have been placed in judicial detention until April 29, 2025, and are scheduled to appear in court on that day.

The court reviewed and signed the case diary throughout the hearing.
The accused were brought before the court from judicial detention. On April 10, they were placed under judicial custody.

The court requested that the damning material against the accused be gathered and held awaiting the application for police detention.

On Tuesday, however, the CBI’s attorney requested that all three of the accused be placed under ten days of detention. He said that expired identification cards belonging to many departments were discovered in Avnish Kumar’s automobile. Additionally, a retired officer’s ID card was discovered.

According to CBI’s attorney, this is only the tip of the iceberg and not a single instance. The accused are involved in a nationwide extortion scheme.

It was maintained that the accused must be held in jail in order to provide them with the evidence, digital data, and voice samples that were gathered.

However, advocates Harsh Sharma and Lakshay Parashar, who represented Anil Tanwar, and Sanal Kumar, who represented accused Jyoti Mohan, contested the remand motion.

It was said that Anil Tanwar was detained at 2 AM at the CBI’s DIG office without following the proper legal process.

The ID cards that were found in the automobile belonged to Avnish Kumar, according to his attorney. He has experience in those divisions. The relevant department can confirm this information.

The court noted in its ruling of April 10, 2025, that the investigating agency had not gathered any such data at that time and that no specific justification had been provided for the accused individuals’ police detention at that time.

The accused Anil Tanwar’s medical condition was deemed adequate for his hospital admission by the attending physicians at Safdarjung Hospital. The physicians also argued that, in accordance with this Court’s orders, the accused was transferred to judicial custody and released from the hospital after his medical condition was evaluated.

Himanshu Nanavati, the complainant, is also a defendant in another CBI case. Avnish Kumar reportedly contacted him and claimed to be a CBI official in order to settle his case.

Additionally, he allegedly met Anil Tanwar, who promised to assist him with cases and requested Rs 50 lakh, which was then lowered to Rs 35 lakh. Tanwar requested that he work with Avnish Kumar to coordinate.