A 2022-batch trainee Indian Police Service officer has landed at the centre of a serious alleged corruption case during his first field posting in Chhattisgarh, with a complaint accusing him of involvement in a ₹1 crore bribe linked to a cyber fraud investigation.
IPS officer Rahul Bansal, currently serving as a City Superintendent of Police in Surguja district, has been named in allegations involving an alleged demand and acceptance of ₹1 crore to cover up a cyber fraud case. Assistant Sub-Inspector Praveen Kumar Rathore and constable Anshul Sharma have also been named in the complaint.
The matter has now reached a Special CBI Court in Delhi. The court has sought an Action Taken Report from the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, and the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, seeking details of the steps taken on the allegations.
The allegations have attracted particular attention because the case involves a young IPS officer during his first field posting. However, the allegations remain allegations, and the court’s direction for an Action Taken Report does not by itself establish the guilt of any of the accused.
According to the complaint and reports about the case, the alleged ₹1 crore payment was not made in one transaction. Instead, the complainant claimed that the money moved through hawala channels in two instalments of ₹50 lakh each in May 2026.
The complaint also reportedly contains digital material that the complainant says supports the allegations, including WhatsApp conversations and recorded phone calls.
Who Is IPS Officer Rahul Bansal?
Rahul Bansal belongs to the 2022 batch of the Indian Police Service. Before entering the IPS, he was reportedly working as an Income Tax Inspector.
After completing his IPS training, Bansal received his first field posting in Chhattisgarh’s Surguja district, where he was appointed as a City Superintendent of Police.
His posting brought him into the local policing system at a time when cybercrime investigations have become increasingly complex. Cyber fraud cases often involve multiple jurisdictions, digital transactions and large networks of suspects, making investigations particularly sensitive.
It was during this posting that the allegations against Bansal and two other police personnel surfaced.
The complaint alleges that the accused officials sought money in connection with a cyber fraud case and that the alleged payment was intended to prevent or alter action in the matter.
At this stage, the available information comes from the complaint and reports about the proceedings. The allegations therefore need to be distinguished from established findings by an investigating agency or court.
Alleged ₹1 Crore Payment in Cyber Fraud Case
The central allegation concerns a ₹1 crore bribe allegedly demanded in connection with a cyber fraud investigation.
According to the complaint, the money allegedly changed hands through hawala channels rather than through a conventional banking transaction. The complainant claimed that the alleged payment took place in two equal instalments of ₹50 lakh during May 2026.
The use of digital evidence has become a key part of the complaint. The complainant reportedly submitted WhatsApp chats and call recordings that are claimed to document conversations connected to the alleged demand.
Such evidence can become important in corruption investigations because investigators can examine the authenticity, timing and context of electronic communications. However, the existence of chats or recordings alone does not automatically prove the allegations. Investigators must establish their authenticity and determine whether the material supports the claims made in the complaint.
The allegations also raise questions about the handling of cybercrime investigations and the safeguards required when police officials exercise significant authority over criminal cases.
WhatsApp Chats and Call Recordings Submitted as Evidence
Digital evidence reportedly forms an important part of the complaint against the accused officials.
According to the available details, the complainant submitted WhatsApp conversations and call recordings to support the allegations. The material is expected to be examined as part of any inquiry ordered by the competent authorities.
Electronic communications can provide investigators with information about dates, conversations and interactions between individuals. But their evidentiary value depends on verification, context and other corroborating material.
The court’s decision to seek an Action Taken Report indicates that the allegations have reached a stage where the authorities are expected to explain what steps, if any, they have taken since receiving the complaint.
The report from the Chhattisgarh DGP and the CBI director could therefore provide greater clarity about whether an internal inquiry, preliminary investigation or other action has been initiated.
Special CBI Court Seeks Action Taken Report
The Special CBI Court in Delhi has sought a detailed Action Taken Report from the Chhattisgarh DGP and the CBI director.
An Action Taken Report generally enables a court to assess what authorities have done after receiving a complaint or information requiring investigation. In this case, the court’s direction places the focus on the response of the police and central investigating authorities.
The court has not, on the basis of the information available, convicted or declared the accused guilty. Instead, its intervention seeks information about the action taken on the allegations.
The next stage could depend on the findings of the authorities, the authenticity and relevance of the digital evidence and whether investigators find sufficient material to proceed further.
The involvement of a Special CBI Court also gives the case a significant legal dimension, particularly because one of the people named in the complaint is a serving IPS officer.
Why the Case Matters
The allegations come at a sensitive time for law enforcement agencies dealing with the rapid growth of cybercrime. Police officers handling cyber fraud investigations often have access to sensitive case information, digital evidence and the authority to influence investigative decisions.
Any allegation that such authority was allegedly used in exchange for money can therefore raise wider concerns about accountability and oversight within the policing system.
The case is also notable because Bansal was reportedly in his first field posting after completing IPS training. Allegations against a newly field-posted officer can attract scrutiny not only because of the individual case but also because they raise questions about supervision, institutional checks and the mechanisms available to detect alleged misconduct.
At the same time, the principle of due process remains important. Allegations made in a complaint must be investigated fairly, and those named in the complaint are entitled to establish their position through the legal process.
What Happens Next?
The immediate focus is likely to remain on the Action Taken Report sought by the Special CBI Court.
The report could indicate whether the Chhattisgarh police or CBI has conducted an inquiry, registered a case, examined the digital evidence or taken any administrative action against the officials named in the complaint.
Investigators would also need to examine the alleged hawala transactions, the claimed two ₹50 lakh instalments, the WhatsApp conversations and the recorded calls. Any further legal action would depend on the evidence gathered and the applicable legal procedures.
For now, the case remains at the allegation and inquiry stage. The court’s direction for an Action Taken Report marks an important development, but it should not be interpreted as a finding of guilt against Rahul Bansal, Praveen Kumar Rathore or Anshul Sharma.
The coming proceedings and any response from the Chhattisgarh police or the CBI are likely to determine whether the allegations lead to a formal investigation or further legal action.