CBI files second chargesheet in Reliance Communications loan case

The Enforcement Action

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed a second chargesheet in the Reliance Communications Limited (RCom) bank loan matter, naming a corporate vehicle and two of its directors before the Special Judge for CBI cases in Mumbai. According to reports of the filing dated 17 July 2026, the agency has named M/s Netizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd., formerly M/s Reliance Infocomm Engineering Pvt. Ltd., along with directors Anil Kalya and Tunu Sahu, for offences it describes as criminal conspiracy, criminal misappropriation and cheating.

The chargesheet sits within a case built on a complaint by the State Bank of India, the lead bank of an 11-bank consortium. The CBI alleges that Netizen Engineering was used by RCom as a "pass-through entity for the wilful diversion of funds", causing wrongful loss to the lending banks. The combined exposure of public sector banks and financial institutions in the matter is placed at Rs 19,694.33 crore.

This is the second chargesheet the agency has filed in the case. The first, dated 29 May 2026, named 16 accused, including RCom, five of its senior executives and ten bank officials. The wider CBI investigation into the group is documented in an official CBI press release published through the Press Information Bureau, which records searches at the premises of Anil Ambani, the promoter and erstwhile chairman of RCom. Neither RCom nor the two named directors have publicly responded to the second chargesheet in the coverage reviewed for this report.

How the Scheme Worked

The case as the agency frames it concerns loans that a consortium of banks, led by the State Bank of India, extended to Reliance Communications over the years the company built and ran its telecom network. RCom's account was declared a non-performing asset in 2017, the point at which lenders formally recognised that repayment had stalled. What the CBI has since sought to establish is not merely default, which is a commercial event, but the alleged diversion of borrowed money away from its sanctioned purpose.

At the centre of the second chargesheet is Netizen Engineering, earlier known as Reliance Infocomm Engineering. The CBI alleges the entity operated as a conduit through which loan funds were routed and then diverted, rather than deployed in the business for which they were sanctioned. In the agency's characterisation, the company functioned as a "pass-through entity", and its two directors are named for their alleged roles in that routing. The reports place the total lender exposure connected to the case at Rs 19,694.33 crore.

The procedural chronology runs from complaint to searches to chargesheets. The first chargesheet, filed on 29 May 2026, brought in RCom itself, five senior company executives and ten bank officials, indicating that the investigation reaches into both the borrower and the lending side. The second chargesheet narrows onto the corporate vehicle said to have carried the diverted funds and the individuals who ran it.

A separate strand runs in parallel. The official CBI press release records a distinct case registered on a complaint from the Bank of Baroda dated 24 February 2026, alleging that the bank suffered a loss of more than Rs 2,220 crore on loans that were, per the release, "diverted and mis-utilized by creating fictitious transactions with related parties", with the books of accounts "manipulated and irregularities concealed". That complaint followed the vacation, on 23 February 2026, of a Bombay High Court stay that had earlier restrained a fraud classification, after which the CBI searched Anil Ambani's residence and RCom's registered offices and recovered documents connected to the loans.

The Law Invoked

The offences named in the second chargesheet, as reported, are criminal conspiracy, criminal misappropriation and cheating. Criminal conspiracy addresses an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence; criminal misappropriation covers the dishonest conversion of property to one's own use; and cheating covers deception that induces a person to part with property or value. The reports of the filing do not set out the specific section numbers, so this account describes the offences rather than assigning statute references the documents reviewed do not state.

The wider prosecution also engages anti-corruption law where public servants are among the accused. The official CBI press release on the related Reliance Communications case records offences of "conspiracy, cheating under IPC and criminal misconduct and abuse of official position under Prevention of Corruption Act". The Prevention of Corruption Act becomes relevant because the first chargesheet named ten bank officials; the Act governs criminal misconduct by public servants, including the abuse of official position in the sanction or handling of public money. Bank officers of public sector lenders fall within its reach.

What Happens Next

A chargesheet is the culmination of an investigation, not a verdict. From here, the Special Judge for CBI cases will consider whether to take cognisance of the chargesheet and, if satisfied there is a case to answer, will frame charges. The accused can seek discharge before charges are framed and can ask the High Court to quash the proceedings. Only after a full trial, in which the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, does the question of guilt arise.

Because this is a CBI matter at the charge stage, the presumption of innocence applies throughout. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The Bombay High Court has already featured in the wider dispute through the stay that was later vacated, and further challenges, at the trial court, the High Court or above, remain open to the parties. Parallel proceedings by other agencies, where they exist, run on their own tracks and do not decide the criminal case.

What It Means

For ordinary borrowers, depositors and investors, the case is a reminder of the distinction the system draws between default and diversion. Falling behind on a loan is a commercial failure; routing sanctioned funds through a conduit to strip them out is what investigators treat as an offence. The alleged "pass-through entity" pattern, where money moves through a related or renamed company before leaving the intended purpose, is a recurring feature of large corporate loan investigations, which is why lenders and auditors scrutinise related-party transactions so closely.

There is a practical takeaway for anyone assessing a listed company. Banks classify stressed accounts as non-performing assets, and may separately tag them as fraud under Reserve Bank of India norms, while the RBI maintains a wilful defaulter framework for borrowers who divert funds. Listed companies must disclose material defaults, fraud classifications and pending investigations to the stock exchanges. Reading those exchange filings and annual reports, rather than relying on headlines, is the most reliable way for an investor to gauge the credit and governance risk attached to a company before committing money. None of this decides the present case, which remains at the allegation stage.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The matter now moves to a trial court, which will decide whether to take cognisance and frame charges. Nothing in the chargesheet has been tested in evidence, and the named parties are entitled to defend themselves at every stage.

What exactly did the CBI file?

According to reports of the filing, the CBI submitted a second chargesheet before the Special Judge for CBI cases in Mumbai, naming M/s Netizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and its directors Anil Kalya and Tunu Sahu. The agency alleges the company was used as a pass-through entity to divert loan funds. It follows a first chargesheet, dated 29 May 2026, filed against 16 accused.

How is this different from the Bank of Baroda case?

They are separate CBI cases. The chargesheet reported on 17 July 2026 belongs to the case built on a State Bank of India complaint, where SBI leads an 11-bank consortium. A distinct CBI case, recorded in the official press release, rests on a Bank of Baroda complaint dated 24 February 2026 alleging a loss of more than Rs 2,220 crore, in which searches were conducted at Anil Ambani's premises.

Can a chargesheet be challenged?

Yes. Once a chargesheet is filed, the accused can seek discharge before charges are framed, and can move the High Court to quash the proceedings. Guilt is decided only after a full trial, in which the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. An acquittal or a discharge remains open at every stage until then.

How can I check if a borrower or account has been flagged?

Banks classify stressed accounts as non-performing assets and, separately, may tag them as fraud under RBI norms; the Reserve Bank also maintains a wilful defaulter framework. Listed companies must disclose material litigation and loan defaults to the stock exchanges. Investors can review a company's exchange filings and annual reports for disclosed defaults, fraud classifications and pending investigations.

This report is based on the official CBI press release on the Reliance Communications case, published through the Press Information Bureau. The second-chargesheet development was surfaced via coverage aggregated by Google News and reported by The420.in.