CBI names its No. 2 Rakesh Asthana as accused No. 1 in bribery case; lens on RAW official
New Delhi, Oct 21: In a development with wide ramifications, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has booked its Special Director Rakesh Asthana in a bribery scandal, naming him as an accused in an FIR filed earlier this week.
Asthana is No. 2 in the CBI hierarchy. The FIR has also named Samant Kumar Goel, Special Director of India’s external intelligence agency (R&AW), but not as an accused. CBI filed the FIR on Tuesday. It named Asthana as Accused Number 1 for demanding and taking bribe from a businessman who was under investigation in the Moin Qureshi corruption case by a special investigation team (SIT) headed by Asthana.
According to sources, CBI has put telephone intercepts, WhatsApp messages, money trail and a statement before the magistrate under Section 164. Text messages sent to Asthana seeking a reaction went unanswered. Exposing faultlines within, the CBI on September 21, had said that it had informed the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) that it was investigating Asthana in six cases of corruption. The CBI has also said Asthana was maligning Director Alok Verma’s image and trying to “intimidate” officials by sending a “frivolous” complaint to the CVC against Verma.
Reacting to this, Asthana wrote to the government with a complaint against Verma, saying that the Director had sought to impede his functioning, interfere in investigations and malign his reputation.
The CBI moved against Asthana after the arrest of Dubai-based middleman Manoj Prasad on a complaint from Hyderabad-based businessman Sana Satish whose role was being investigated by the CBI SIT under Asthana in the Qureshi corruption case. Qureshi was raided by the Income-Tax department in February 2014, and his BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) messages with former CBI Director A P Singh led to Singh’s resignation as member of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Three years later, a case was registered by the CBI in February 2017. This was one of the many important cases being handled by the SIT headed by Asthana.
Satish gave a statement before the Magistrate on October 4, naming Asthana, Prasad and Prasad’s relative, Somesh Srivastava, and gave details of how he had paid Rs 3 crore over a period of 10 months from December 2017 to stay away from the CBI case. Satish claimed he was harassed by CBI officers to pay more. On the instructions of Manoj Prasad, Rs 25 lakh were allegedly paid on October 9 to a conduit to get relief from appearing before the SIT for questioning. After he got relief, Prasad travelled from Dubai to Delhi in the morning to collect Rs 1.75 crore on October 16, where he was apprehended by the CBI team.
The FIR states that Goel, R&AW’s No. 2, was well known to, and had been in regular touch with, Manoj and Somesh. He has not been named as an accused, but his role in the case remains under investigation by the CBI, sources said.
Courtesy: indianexpress.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Allahabad HC orders FIR against Rahul Gandhi in dual citizenship case
Lucknow (PTI): The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Friday ordered an FIR be filed against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in connection with an alleged dual citizenship controversy.
The bench permitted the state government to hand over the probe to any central probe agency after registration of the FIR.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on a petition filed by S Vignesh Shishir, who had challenged a January 28 order of a special MP/MLA court rejecting his plea for an FIR against Gandhi, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The special court had earlier held that it was not competent to adjudicate on issues related to citizenship.
The petitioner, a BJP worker from Karnataka, had sought registration of an FIR and a detailed probe into the matter, levelling allegations against Gandhi under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Official Secrets Act, the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act.
The complaint was initially filed before the special MP/MLA court in Rae Bareli. However, on the petitioner's request, the high court transferred the case to Lucknow on December 17, 2025.
The MP/MLA court in Lucknow subsequently dismissed the plea on January 28, 2026, prompting the petitioner to approach the high court, which has now ordered registration of an FIR.
In its order, the bench said that from a bare perusal of the allegations, prima facie cognizable offences were made out against Gandhi and hence the allegations required to be investigated.
The bench said that the special court should have looked into whether the allegations prima facie made out any cognizable offences or not, but it failed to consider it.
Earlier, Deputy Solicitor General of India SB Pandey produced the central government's records in the court relating to the citizenship controversy surrounding Gandhi.
Government counsel VK Singh also consented on behalf of the UP government that the allegations prima facie made out cognizable offences.
After having a detailed hearing, the bench found that the material on records showed that Gandhi had committed "cognizable offences" in having dual citizenship, and these allegations required to be probed.
The petitioner has alleged that Rahul is a UK Citizen and incorporated a company named M/S Backops Ltd in August 2003.
It was further submitted that Gandhi categorically admitted and voluntarily declared his nationality as British, having a Director Identification ID and London and Hampshire addresses.
In his petition, Shishir claimed that Rahul submitted the company's annual returns in October 2005 and October 2006, listing his nationality as British.
Thereafter, the company was dissolved through a dissolution application in February 2009.
According to the petitioner, the material placed before the court includes records suggesting that Rahul Gandhi may have been listed as a voter in the United Kingdom and participated in electoral processes there.
During the course of the hearing, the high court earlier directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to place all relevant records, including classified documents, before the court.
