Rajasthan ACB arrests court clerk, home guard driver in ₹40,000 bribery case in Banswara
Synopsis
The Rajasthan ACB caught a court clerk and a home guard driver red-handed in Banswara after they allegedly demanded ₹40,000 from a litigant to prevent bail cancellation and avoid conviction — a case that exposes how court-attached staff can allegedly hold justice to ransom for cash.
Key Takeaways
The Rajasthan ACB arrested Sandeep Kumar Nanavati (Grade-I clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate's court) and Rahul Chandel (home guard driver) in Banswara on Monday, 13 October 2025 .
The duo allegedly demanded ₹40,000 in exchange for preventing bail cancellation and avoiding conviction in a pending court case.
Chandel was caught red-handed accepting the bribe on Nanavati's behalf during a trap operation.
Investigators also found an earlier alleged demand of ₹2,000 for 'kharche-pani' (incidental expenses).
A case is to be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act ; searches are ongoing at the residences of both accused.
The operation was led by DSP Ratan Singh Rajpurohit and supervised by SP Piyush Dixit , ACB Udaipur Range.
The Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on Monday, 13 October 2025, arrested a Grade-I court clerk and a home guard driver posted at courts in Banswara for their alleged roles in a ₹40,000 bribery case, according to an official ACB statement. The operation marks yet another trap action by the bureau targeting court-attached personnel who allegedly exploit litigants' fear of adverse judicial outcomes.
What the ACB Alleged
Sandeep Kumar Nanavati, a Grade-I clerk and reader to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, allegedly demanded the bribe in exchange for ensuring the complainant's bail was not cancelled, preventing a conviction in a pending court case, and providing further assistance in the matter. Nanavati allegedly used Rahul Chandel, a home guard driver attached to the Additional Judicial Magistrate, as a conduit to collect the money.
Investigators also found that the accused had allegedly demanded and accepted ₹2,000 from the complainant earlier under the pretext of incidental expenses — colloquially referred to as 'kharche-pani' — before the main trap was laid.
How the Trap Operation Unfolded
The ACB verified the bribe demand on 11 October through the complainant and a co-complainant. The Banswara ACB team subsequently executed a trap operation on Monday under the leadership of Deputy Superintendent of Police Ratan Singh Rajpurohit, supervised by Superintendent of Police Piyush Dixit of the ACB Udaipur Range.
During the operation, Chandel was caught red-handed while allegedly accepting the ₹40,000 on Nanavati's behalf. Nanavati was then arrested for his alleged involvement in the bribery demand.
Investigation and Legal Proceedings
Further interrogation and legal proceedings are underway under the supervision of ACB Additional Director General Smita Srivastava and Inspector General S. Parimala. The bureau is also conducting searches at the residences of both the accused.
A case is to be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, according to the official statement. ACB Director General Govind Gupta confirmed the arrests, stating that the complaint had been received alleging that Nanavati, through Chandel, had demanded a bribe in exchange for judicial favours.
ACB Advisory to the Public
The ACB also issued a public advisory urging people not to fall victim to fraudsters who exploit the fear of anti-corruption investigations. The bureau clarified that anyone facing an ACB complaint or preliminary inquiry could approach it directly to present their explanation, and that investigation-related decisions are taken only after examining the response in detail.
This comes amid a sustained anti-corruption drive by the Rajasthan ACB across judicial and administrative setups in the state. With searches still underway and charges yet to be formally filed, the case is expected to develop further in the coming days.
Point of View
Drivers, peons — is a persistent weak link in India's court ecosystem, one that rarely draws as much scrutiny as judicial conduct itself. A litigant allegedly had to pay to keep their bail intact, which inverts the basic premise of due process. The ACB's trap model works when complaints come in, but the bureau's own advisory — urging people to approach it directly rather than pay up — underscores how many such demands likely go unreported. Until court administrations institute stronger internal oversight of support staff, these cases will keep surfacing one trap at a time.
NationPress
12 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was arrested by the Rajasthan ACB in the Banswara bribery case?
The Rajasthan ACB arrested Sandeep Kumar Nanavati , a Grade-I clerk and reader to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Banswara, and Rahul Chandel , a home guard driver attached to the Additional Judicial Magistrate. Chandel was caught red-handed accepting ₹40,000 on Nanavati's behalf.
What was the bribe allegedly demanded for in the Banswara case?
According to the ACB, Nanavati allegedly demanded the bribe in exchange for ensuring the complainant's bail was not cancelled, preventing a conviction in a pending court case, and providing further assistance in the matter. An earlier ₹2,000 was also allegedly taken as 'kharche-pani.'
How did the Rajasthan ACB conduct the trap operation?
The ACB verified the bribe demand on 11 October through the complainant and a co-complainant. A trap was then executed on Monday under DSP Ratan Singh Rajpurohit, supervised by SP Piyush Dixit of the ACB Udaipur Range, during which Chandel was apprehended red-handed.
What law will the accused be charged under?
A case is to be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, according to the official ACB statement. Further investigation is being conducted under the supervision of ACB Additional DG Smita Srivastava and IG S. Parimala, with searches ongoing at the residences of both accused.
What advisory did the ACB issue alongside the arrests?
The ACB advised people not to pay fraudsters who exploit the fear of anti-corruption investigations. It clarified that anyone facing an ACB complaint or preliminary inquiry can approach the bureau directly, and that decisions are made only after examining the explanation provided.
