CBI Court Demands Status Report After Witness Claims He Received Threatening Calls in Corruption Probe

When the Chandigarh metropolitan magistrate’s court opened the docket on Tuesday, the atmosphere was tense – not just because of the hefty money‑laundering accusations, but also because a fresh twist had been introduced. The prosecution’s star witness, who has been pivotal in linking senior officials to the alleged misappropriation of public funds, stepped forward and claimed he had been receiving menacing phone calls over the past few weeks.

According to the witness, the calls were not ordinary reminders or innocuous inquiries. “They were threatening,” he told the bench, his voice wavering slightly. “I was told to stop cooperating, or else there would be consequences for my family.” He did not disclose the exact number of calls, but mentioned that they came from a “masked” number, making tracing difficult.

The judge, sitting behind the mahogany bench, frowned and asked the counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce a written status report on the matter. “If a witness feels unsafe, the integrity of the entire investigation is at stake,” the magistrate warned. He gave the agency a deadline of 48 hours to submit a comprehensive note covering the steps taken to safeguard the witness, any FIRs lodged, and whether any further action against the alleged callers was underway.

CBI officials present in the courtroom appeared visibly unsettled. Senior Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Amit Sharma, who is handling the case, assured the bench that the agency was already aware of the complaints and that a “preliminary inquiry” had been launched. He added that the calls were being traced and that protection under the Witness Protection Scheme had been extended to the complainant.

The graft case itself revolves around the alleged siphoning of approximately ₹150 crore from a government‑run housing scheme in the Union Territory. The investigation, which began six months ago, has already resulted in the arrest of two senior officers and the seizure of several bank accounts. While the prosecution claims that the witness’s testimony will cement the link between the accused officials and the financial irregularities, defence counsel argued that the witness’s statements could be “coercively obtained” and hence unreliable.

Legal experts observing the proceedings said this development is not unusual. “Witness intimidation is a recurring problem in high‑profile corruption cases across the country,” noted Anjali Mehta, a senior advocate based in New Delhi. “What matters is how swiftly the investigative agency reacts. A prompt, transparent report can go a long way in reassuring the court and the public.”

Meanwhile, civil‑society groups monitoring the case have taken to social media, urging the authorities to ensure that the witness receives full protection. A tweet from the ‘Transparency India’ front read, “No one should be silenced for speaking truth. CBI, step up.”

As the courtroom emptied, the lingering question remained: will the CBI’s forthcoming report address the witness’s fears adequately, or will the allegations of threat calls add another layer of complexity to an already tangled investigation? Only time – and a diligent follow‑up from the magistrate – will tell.