How CBI case against Arvind Kejriwal ex-aide hit a wall in approver’s bank locker

Among the accused was A K Duggal, who was a managing director at the time of Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited (ICSIL), a PSU through which the contracts under probe were allegedly awarded to Endeavour Systems Pvt Ltd (ESPL). While Duggal was initially an accused, he was granted a pardon by a Delhi Court in November 2016 after the CBI named him an approver.

Along with the houses and offices raided, the CBI also searched the bank lockers of all the accused. While the contents of the lockers of all accused persons were eventually made known to the court and to the other accused, what was found inside Duggal’s locker still remains a mystery.

“What was in the locker?” Special Judge Manisha Khurana Kakkar, who is hearing the corruption case at Rouse Avenue Court, asked the CBI on July 22 — close to a decade after the case was lodged. “We don’t know, your honour,” came the response of the CBI’s counsel.

The judge asked the CBI to clarify whether the missing material was “untraceable”. “Otherwise, the matter won’t proceed further,” she said. Issuing notice for the Investigating Officer to appear, the judge listed the matter for August 26.

Court records trace the locker mystery back to 2015 when the CBI submitted a compliance report before the court mentioning that they had seized a “stainless locker key of a locker maintained at SBI Civil Lines” from the accused Kumar’s residence. A similar search conducted at Duggal’s residence resulted in two locker keys being found: “one Locker Key of Canara Bank, Vikas Puri” and another “Locker Key No. 20756 of State Bank of Patiala, near Janak Cinema Hall, Janak Puri”, the agency said.

Records show that the mystery unfolded in a series of court hearings:

September 2018: The CBI told the court that they were preparing a list of “un-relied” documents — ie, records not used by the prosecution to build its case but can be accessed by the accused.

July 2019: Advocates Rahul Tyagi and Mathew M Philip, who represented Kumar, asked for a list of “un-relied” documents and a list of all witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation.

April 2022: The court directed the CBI to supply a list of “un-relied” documents, holding that the accused were “entitled for the same”.

August 2022: The court took on record the list of “un-relied” documents. In Duggal’s case, this included printouts of emails, a debit card intimation, a vehicle insurance certificate, bank documents, receipts of purchase of jewellery, such as diamonds, and a duplicate vehicle registration. What was allegedly found in his bank locker was not mentioned.

February 2023: Kumar’s counsel approached the court, this time seeking a copy of the compliance report of all the searches and seizures done by the CBI.

November 2024: The court directed the CBI to provide a copy of the report — it had no mention of the “locker operation memo”, a record of the contents of Duggal’s bank locker.

May 8, 2025: Kumar’s counsel contended that the absence of the “locker operation memo” in the CBI’s compliance report cast “a shadow on whether due process was followed by the IO during investigation”.

In its reply, the CBI told the court: “Locker Operation Memos… as seized from the residence of Shri A K Duggal on 15.12.2015 are not traceable despite thorough searches. It is submitted that the aforesaid two locker keys pertaining to Shri A K Duggal have already been returned to him.”

The reply further stated that locker operation memos pertaining to all the other accused had been provided. In three of these lockers, nothing had been found, the CBI told the court. It further stated that the original IO who was investigating the case had retired from service and subsequent IOs had left the CBI.

“…no articles were seized and the aforesaid both keys pertaining to Shri A K Duggal had already been returned to him…As such, there was no mention of the Locker Operation Memo in the list of un-relied documents. There was nothing intentional for not mentioning the Locker Operation Memo in the list of un-relied documents…the accused Petitioner is lingering the matter by filing such baseless petitions,” the CBI’s reply said.

On July 22, the CBI counsel told the court: “The locker operation memo is not part of relied or un-relied upon documents.” It was at this juncture that the judge decided to pause and call for the IO to be present at the next date.

The case is significant for the CBI because it was among the first allegations of corruption that was levelled against Kejriwal’s aides by the Centre at the time. Rajendra Kumar, a 1989-batch IAS officer who was described by the CBI as the “kingpin” of the alleged scam, was arrested in July 2016 and later granted bail. The chargesheet in the case was filed in December 2016.

According to the CBI, the alleged scam led to a loss of Rs 12 crore for the Delhi government. ESPL, the agency alleged, was a “front company” floated by Kumar in 2006 along with his purported “schoolmate” Ashok Kumar. The private firm, along with its directors Sandeep Kumar and Dinesh Gupta, was also named as accused.

When contacted, Rahul Tyagi, counsel for Rajendra Kumar, asserted that “the only plausible reason for not disclosing what was found in the lockers of Duggal is that had these been disclosed, no court would have allowed Duggal to become an approver”. “It is a travesty that the person, who has awarded the contracts, is a witness and a highly decorated and honest officer like Rajendra Kumar, against whom nothing incriminating has been found, has been made an accused,” Tyagi said.