Rajasthan ACB arrests two middlemen for ₹25 lakh bribe, CGST officer detained
Synopsis
The Rajasthan ACB caught two alleged middlemen red-handed accepting ₹25 lakh in Rajsamand — the first instalment of a ₹60 lakh bribe allegedly demanded by a CGST Superintendent in Udaipur to settle regulatory proceedings against a businessman's two firms. The CGST officer has been detained and his residence is being searched.
Key Takeaways
The Rajasthan ACB arrested alleged middlemen Anil Pareek and Sushil Pareek on 29 September 2026 in Rajsamand .
The duo was allegedly caught accepting ₹25 lakh — the first instalment of a total ₹60 lakh bribe demand.
Sanwal Ram , Superintendent (Tax Evasion), CGST Commissionerate, Udaipur , has been detained in connection with the case.
The bribe was allegedly demanded to halt recovery proceedings and resolve regulatory notices against a complainant's two firms.
A case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is set to be registered; a search of Sanwal Ram 's Udaipur residence is underway.
The Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on Tuesday, 29 September 2026, arrested two alleged middlemen caught allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹25 lakh in Rajsamand on behalf of Sanwal Ram, Superintendent (Tax Evasion) at the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Commissionerate, Udaipur. The detained officer and the two middlemen are now under investigation as the ACB moves to register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Who Was Arrested
The two alleged middlemen have been identified as Anil Pareek and Sushil Pareek. According to the ACB, the ₹25 lakh was reportedly received through Sushil Pareek during the trap operation. Sanwal Ram was simultaneously detained, and a search of his residence in Udaipur is currently underway under the supervision of ACB Additional Director General of Police Smita Srivastava and Inspector General of Police S. Parimala.
What the Complainant Alleged
The operation was triggered by a complaint filed by a businessperson who owns two registered firms. The complainant alleged that Sanwal Ram was demanding a total bribe of ₹60 lakh — channelled through middleman Anil Pareek — to settle multiple regulatory matters. These reportedly included refraining from initiating recovery proceedings against one firm, resolving a show-cause notice and summons, and reactivating the account of the second firm after withdrawing notices issued against it.
The complainant stated they were being pressured to pay ₹25 lakh as the first instalment of the total demanded amount.
How the Trap Was Laid
The ACB said the alleged demand was verified by Additional Superintendent of Police Himmat Charan of ACB Rajsamand, under the supervision of Deputy Inspector General of Police Rameshwar Singh. After verification confirmed the bribe demand, the Rajsamand ACB unit executed a trap operation on Tuesday on the directions of the ACB Headquarters. The two middlemen were arrested in the act of allegedly accepting the cash.
Director General of Police, ACB, Govind Gupta confirmed the operation and its outcome. Interrogation of the accused is currently underway, with formal legal proceedings set to follow.
Legal Proceedings and Next Steps
The ACB has stated that a case will be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bureau noted that all allegations remain subject to investigation and due legal process. In line with its standard operating procedure, the ACB said it takes decisions on investigations only after examining the explanation and relevant material submitted by those named, and that any individual against whom a case is registered may directly contact the bureau to submit their version.
The outcome of the residence search in Udaipur and the interrogation of the arrested middlemen are expected to determine the next course of action in the case.
Point of View
With middlemen serving as insulation. The ₹60 lakh total demand against a trader with just two registered firms underscores how enforcement discretion can become a tool of extortion rather than compliance. The ACB's decision to publish its standard operating procedure — inviting the accused to submit their version — is a procedural safeguard, but it should not obscure the structural risk: CGST officers with wide discretionary powers over recovery proceedings and account reactivation face minimal real-time oversight. Whether this arrest prompts a systemic review within the CGST Commissionerate, Udaipur, will be the real test of institutional accountability.
NationPress
29 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Who did the Rajasthan ACB arrest in the Rajsamand bribe case?
The ACB arrested two alleged middlemen, Anil Pareek and Sushil Pareek, on 29 September 2026 in Rajsamand while they were allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹25 lakh. CGST Superintendent (Tax Evasion) Sanwal Ram, on whose behalf the bribe was allegedly being collected, was simultaneously detained.
Why was the ₹25 lakh bribe allegedly demanded?
According to the complainant, Sanwal Ram allegedly demanded a total of ₹60 lakh through middlemen to settle multiple regulatory matters: stopping recovery proceedings against one firm, resolving a show-cause notice and summons, and reactivating the account of a second firm. The ₹25 lakh was alleged to be only the first instalment of that total demand.
What legal action is the ACB taking in this case?
The ACB has stated it will register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused. A search of Sanwal Ram's residence in Udaipur is underway, and interrogation of the arrested middlemen is in progress. Further legal proceedings will follow the investigation.
Which ACB officials oversaw the operation?
The trap operation was conducted by the Rajsamand ACB unit. Verification of the bribe demand was led by Additional Superintendent of Police Himmat Charan under Deputy Inspector General of Police Rameshwar Singh. The residence search is being supervised by Additional DGP Smita Srivastava and IGP S. Parimala. DGP ACB Govind Gupta confirmed the overall operation.
What recourse do those named in an ACB case have?
The ACB stated that any individual against whom a formal complaint, preliminary inquiry, or case is registered may directly contact the bureau to submit their explanation or version. The bureau's standard procedure is to examine all explanations and relevant material before making decisions on an investigation.
