ED bribery case: CBI apprehends two Lucknow officials

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it apprehended an enforcement officer and a head constable posted at the Enforcement Directorate’s Lucknow zonal office in an alleged Rs 5 lakh bribery case after laying a trap on 23 October 2026. The agency alleged that the money was sought in exchange for helping the complainant’s father in an ED case.

PTI, in a report published by ThePrint, identified the two officials as Enforcement Officer Deepak Kumar and Head Constable Manoj Dwivedi. The CBI’s statement identified them by their posts, without naming them.

The alleged transaction concerned a man who had received two summonses from the ED’s Lucknow Zone in August and September 2026, according to the CBI. The complaint alleged that the head constable demanded a bribe to help him in that case.

Complaint led to a same-day trap

The CBI said it registered the bribery case on 23 October 2026 against the head constable and unidentified ED officials, acting on a complaint. It laid the trap that day.

According to the agency, the head constable was caught while demanding and accepting Rs 5 lakh on behalf of the enforcement officer. The CBI alleged that the payment was intended to secure a favour for the complainant’s father.

The agency’s account assigns different alleged roles to the two officials: the head constable was described as collecting the money, while the enforcement officer was described as the person on whose behalf it was collected. The statement does not say that both men physically received the cash.

PTI reported that both officials were arrested. The CBI’s statement used the term “apprehended”. Neither account establishes a finding of guilt; the alleged demand and payment form the basis of the bribery investigation.

Delhi payment and a call to Lucknow

Hindustan Times reported a sequence spanning Delhi and Lucknow, adding details not contained in the CBI’s statement. Citing a CBI official familiar with the operation, the newspaper said investigators first apprehended Dwivedi in Delhi after he allegedly accepted the money on Kumar’s behalf.

According to that official’s account in Hindustan Times, Dwivedi called Kumar to confirm that the payment had been received. The CBI’s Lucknow team was then alerted, went to the ED zonal office and arrested Kumar.

That reporting places the alleged cash handover in Delhi, rather than at the Lucknow office where the officials were posted. The CBI statement itself does not specify the location of the handover or describe the phone call.

Hindustan Times also reported that the complaint came from the summoned man’s son. It said the son alleged that the money was demanded to secure relief for his father, including removal of his name from the case.

The CBI’s statement describes the alleged purpose more broadly as helping or favouring the father in the ED case. It does not specify an investigative decision that either official allegedly promised to change.

Reports differ on the amount handed over

There is a discrepancy in the published accounts of the alleged payment. The CBI said the head constable demanded and accepted Rs 5 lakh. PTI and Hindustan Times also reported an alleged Rs 5 lakh payment.

Dainik Jagran, however, reported that Dwivedi was caught in Delhi accepting Rs 3,50,000, even though its account described the case as involving an alleged Rs 5 lakh bribe.

The difference concerns the amount allegedly received during the trap, not simply the size of the demand. The accounts do not explain whether a partial payment was involved or provide another basis for reconciling the figures. The CBI’s stated amount remains Rs 5 lakh; Dainik Jagran’s transaction figure differs from it.

Dainik Jagran further reported that Dwivedi belonged to the Central Reserve Police Force and was serving with the ED on deputation, a temporary posting to another organisation. It said action against the two officials was taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI statement does not identify the statutory provisions invoked.

Underlying ED case remains only partly described

The reports provide differing levels of detail about the investigation involving the complainant’s father. Hindustan Times described it as a money-laundering probe, while Dainik Jagran said the summonses concerned a bank-fraud-related matter. These descriptions are not necessarily inconsistent, but neither report supplies the case documents needed to establish the precise allegations.

The CBI’s statement calls it an ED case without identifying the underlying transaction, the allegations against the father or his procedural status. Receipt of summonses is the documented link between him and the agency’s investigation in that statement.

News18 reported that investigators were examining the alleged bribery arrangement and the possible involvement of other officials. The inclusion of unidentified ED officials in the registered case does not establish their participation. Their identities and any specific role beyond those attributed to the two apprehended officials were not disclosed in the CBI’s statement.