Rajasthan Police Service officer and former Additional Superintendent of Police Divya Mittal has received major relief after the Anti-Corruption Bureau closed the Rs 2 crore bribery case against her. The case had attracted significant attention in 2023 after Mittal was arrested over allegations that she demanded a large bribe in connection with a narcotics investigation.
The case dates back to an investigation into narcotic medicines that were seized in Jaipur and Ajmer in 2021. The seized medicines were valued at around Rs 16 crore, and the investigation was being handled by the Special Operations Group in Ajmer, which was then headed by Divya Mittal.
During the investigation, a pharmaceutical company based in Haridwar and its owner came under the scrutiny of the authorities. According to the allegations made at the time, Mittal demanded Rs 2 crore from the pharmaceutical businessman in exchange for removing his name from the case and ensuring that he was not arrested.
The alleged demand was reportedly communicated through a dismissed police constable, Sumit Kumar, who was accused of acting as an intermediary between Mittal and the complainant. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau after being asked to pay the alleged bribe.
According to the ACB’s investigation, the original demand of Rs 2 crore was eventually negotiated down to Rs 50 lakh. The amount was reportedly to be paid in instalments, with Rs 25 lakh discussed as the first payment.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau subsequently carried out verification of the complaint. Investigators recorded conversations related to the alleged demand and planned an operation to catch the accused during the alleged bribery transaction.
However, the operation did not proceed as investigators had expected. Mittal allegedly became aware of the ACB’s action, following which the trap could not be completed in the planned manner. Despite this, the ACB continued its investigation on the basis of the material it had collected, including the verification and recorded conversations.
Mittal was arrested on January 16, 2023, in connection with the case. Her arrest followed a major operation by the Rajasthan ACB and brought considerable attention to allegations of corruption involving a senior police officer.
After her arrest, Mittal was placed in custody and her bail application was initially rejected by a special ACB court. She later approached the Rajasthan High Court, which granted her bail in March 2023.
The ACB subsequently filed a substantial chargesheet in the case. The chargesheet reportedly ran to around 11,500 pages and alleged that Mittal had demanded Rs 2 crore and accepted Rs 1 crore in connection with the case.
The investigation then entered a complicated legal and administrative phase. Although the ACB had prepared its case and filed the chargesheet, the prosecution required the necessary sanction from the competent government authority before proceedings against the public servant could continue.
That prosecution sanction was ultimately not granted. The Rajasthan government rejected the request, citing shortcomings in the evidence and investigation, according to reports. The decision became an important turning point in the case because without the required sanction, the prosecution faced a major obstacle.
The latest development is that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has now officially closed the Rs 2 crore bribery case against Mittal. The closure provides significant relief to the suspended police officer, who had faced the allegations for more than three years.
The closure does not mean that the original allegations never existed. The ACB had investigated the complaint, arrested Mittal and filed a chargesheet containing its allegations. However, the case ultimately failed to move forward because the required prosecution sanction was not obtained and the evidentiary foundation was considered insufficient for prosecution.
The case has therefore raised questions about the investigative process as well as the safeguards surrounding prosecution of public servants. Anti-corruption agencies need sufficient evidence to establish allegations, while public servants are also entitled to the procedural protections provided under law.
The allegations against Mittal originated from a highly sensitive narcotics investigation. The underlying case involved pharmaceutical medicines that had been seized in Jaipur and Ajmer and were being examined under provisions relating to narcotic substances. Mittal was responsible for the investigation through her position with the Ajmer SOG at the time.
The ACB’s allegation was that the pharmaceutical businessman was being pressured to pay money in exchange for relief in that narcotics case. The alleged demand was initially placed at Rs 2 crore, with the amount later reportedly reduced to Rs 1 crore and ultimately settled at Rs 50 lakh.
The role allegedly played by the dismissed constable Sumit Kumar was another important part of the original investigation. According to the ACB, he acted as an intermediary and communicated the alleged demand to the complainant.
The investigation also involved searches at several locations connected with Mittal. At the time of the arrest, the ACB examined properties and official locations in Ajmer, Jaipur, Udaipur and other places as part of its investigation.
Mittal’s arrest became one of Rajasthan’s prominent anti-corruption cases in early 2023 because of the size of the alleged bribe and the senior position held by the accused officer. The case also generated considerable public and political discussion about corruption within law-enforcement agencies.
The subsequent filing of an 11,500-page chargesheet suggested that the ACB had gathered a substantial volume of material during its investigation. However, the quantity of documentation alone could not overcome the legal and evidentiary requirements necessary for prosecution.
The prosecution-sanction issue became particularly significant. Public servants can be subject to specific legal requirements before criminal prosecution relating to acts connected with their official duties can proceed. The exact applicability of such protections depends on the circumstances and the provisions invoked in a particular case.
In Mittal’s case, the government ultimately declined the prosecution sanction sought by the ACB. Reports indicated that shortcomings in the investigation and evidence were among the reasons behind the decision.
The latest ACB closure now brings the original Rs 2 crore bribery case to an end from the agency’s perspective. The development is a major change from the situation in 2023, when Mittal was arrested and the ACB publicly maintained that it had evidence supporting its allegations.
The case has also continued to attract attention because separate allegations and investigations involving Mittal emerged during the period following her arrest. These included a disproportionate-assets investigation and allegations concerning another bribery matter. The closure of the Rs 2 crore case should therefore not automatically be interpreted as the closure of every matter that may have involved her.
It is important to distinguish between the different proceedings. The current development specifically concerns the Rs 2 crore bribery case connected with the narcotics investigation. Any separate inquiry or proceeding would have to be considered independently according to its own facts and legal status.
The case also demonstrates the importance of evidence in corruption investigations. Allegations of bribery can be serious, but investigators must establish the alleged demand, the role of each participant and the connection between the accused and the transaction through legally admissible evidence.
In this case, the ACB relied on verification and recorded conversations after the planned trap did not succeed. The subsequent prosecution nevertheless faced difficulties, ultimately contributing to the government’s decision not to grant sanction.
For Mittal, the closure represents significant legal relief after years of uncertainty. She had been arrested, suspended and investigated in a case that attracted national attention because of the alleged amount involved and her position as a senior police officer.
For the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the closure is a setback compared with the agency’s position in 2023, when it had arrested Mittal and later filed a detailed chargesheet. The development is likely to renew discussions about the quality of evidence required in corruption cases involving public officials.
The case also highlights the difference between an arrest and a conviction. An arrest is part of an investigation and does not establish guilt. Similarly, the filing of a chargesheet represents the investigating agency’s case, while guilt must ultimately be established through the judicial process.
In Mittal’s case, the proceedings did not reach a final criminal trial on the original bribery allegations because the required prosecution sanction was not granted. The ACB has now closed the case, providing a formal end to the investigation.
The development may also have implications for the administrative status of the officer. The status of her suspension and any separate departmental proceedings would be governed by the relevant government orders and service rules and should not automatically be assumed to have ended merely because the bribery case has been closed.
For now, the central development is clear: the Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau has closed the Rs 2 crore bribery case against former ASP Divya Mittal. The case had originated from allegations surrounding a narcotics investigation and resulted in her arrest in January 2023.
The closure follows the government’s earlier refusal to grant prosecution sanction and concerns regarding the evidence collected by the ACB. It marks a significant reversal in a case that once attracted considerable attention because of the allegations against a senior police officer.
The episode is likely to remain part of the wider debate over corruption investigations, prosecution sanctions and accountability within government institutions. It also underlines the importance of ensuring that anti-corruption investigations are supported by strong, properly collected evidence capable of surviving legal scrutiny.
For Divya Mittal, the ACB’s decision brings major relief in the long-running Rs 2 crore bribery matter. For the authorities, however, the case leaves behind questions about the investigation, the prosecution process and the circumstances that ultimately led to its closure.
