ED Had Sought Judicial Custody After Six-Day Remand; Next Court Appearance Scheduled for September 23
Raipur, Chhattisgarh: Additional Collector of Balrampur Chetan Borgharia, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) examination scam, has been sent to judicial custody for eight days by the court.
Borgharia was arrested by the ED on September 11. Following his production before the court, the agency had sought custodial remand for further interrogation. The court initially granted six days of ED custody.
After the six-day remand ended on September 16, Borgharia was produced before the court again. The ED sought judicial custody, which the court accepted. He was subsequently sent to jail for eight days.
Borgharia is scheduled to be produced before the court again on September 23.
ED Alleges Financial Links With Utkarsh Chandrakar
According to ED Special Public Prosecutor Saurabh Kumar Pandey, the agency has alleged financial transactions between Borgharia and Utkarsh Chandrakar, who is accused in the CGPSC examination paper-leak case.
The ED alleged that Chandrakar was involved in leaking CGPSC preliminary and mains examination papers and providing question papers to candidates in exchange for money.
According to the agency, financial transactions between Borgharia and Chandrakar took place through bank transfers. The ED told the court that Borgharia did not provide what the agency considered a satisfactory explanation regarding the money received in his account.
During questioning, Borgharia reportedly told investigators that he had taken a loan from Chandrakar. The ED, however, questioned how such a loan could have been provided without security or supporting documentation.
The agency also referred to WhatsApp communications between the two, which it said indicated financial dealings. These claims remain allegations presented by the investigating agency.
Defence Challenges ED’s Case
The defence had filed an application opposing the grant of judicial custody.
According to the ED’s submissions in court, the defence argued that there was no direct evidence providing grounds for Borgharia’s arrest. The defence also raised objections regarding the seizure and examination of Borgharia’s mobile phone, alleging that it had been taken and its data accessed without his permission.
The defence further argued that Borgharia’s name did not appear in the original police FIR relating to the alleged offence underlying the money-laundering investigation.
The defence therefore questioned the basis for his arrest in the ED investigation.
Court Rejects Defence Application
The ED opposed the defence application and maintained that it had statutory powers under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to conduct searches as part of its investigation.
The agency also told the court that Borgharia had allegedly concealed his mobile phone during the search, and rejected the defence contention that the search required his prior permission.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge rejected the defence application and accepted the ED’s request for judicial custody.
The ED further argued that at the remand stage, an accused cannot simply seek release from custody without moving an appropriate bail application. According to the agency, once a person has been arrested, custody may either be judicial or investigative depending on the court’s order, while release is ordinarily sought through the bail process.
Borgharia will remain in judicial custody until his next scheduled court appearance on September 23.
