Today, On 27th May, The Delhi High Court refused interim relief to the Rouse Avenue Court ahlmad accused in a bribery case, observing, “Very, very serious allegations. The evidence has come on record. A person from our own staff… this is serious.”
The Delhi High Court requested a status report from the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) regarding its ongoing investigation into bribery allegations against an ahlmad (record keeper) from the Rouse Avenue Court.
The High Court had recently transferred a Special Judge (PC Act) from the Rouse Avenue Court to North-West Rohini following the booking of the ahlmad, Mukesh Kumar, who has claimed that there is a plot to frame the judge.
Today, Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea was scheduled for hearing before Justice Amit Sharma, who refused to grant any interim protection from arrest to the accused.
The court stated after Kumar’s counsel requested interim protection,
“Very, very serious allegations. The evidence has come on record. A person from our own staff… this is something very serious,”
The court has scheduled the plea for hearing on May 29, coinciding with the date for Kumar’s petition to quash the FIR.
While declining to issue any interim protection order, the single-judge remarked,
“We will dispose of it,”
Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Maninder Singh represented Kumar. Mathur argued that the ACB officer, against whom Kumar had lodged a complaint in January, has been appointed as the Investigating Officer in the case.
Also Read: [Bribery Case] Maharashtra Court Acquitted a MSEB Peon
He added,
“What fairness can I expect,”
In response, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjay Bhandari stated that Kumar was directly involved in the bribery.
He said,
“There is a handwritten slip which he initially gave that shows how the things have to go on,”
Mathur countered that Kumar has participated in the investigation at least seven times since February, noting,
“There are criss-cross complaints.”
The ACB, On May 16, registered a case against Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It is alleged that the ahlmad demanded and received bribes from certain accused to facilitate their bail.
Before the FIR was registered, the ACB had written to the Law Secretary of the Delhi government in January, seeking permission to investigate the judge and submitted the alleged evidence against him and the court official to the High Court on the administrative side.
According to the ACB, the High Court responded in February that the investigating agency was free to pursue the allegations further, but noted that it did not have “sufficient material” against the judge to grant permission for action against him.
The High Court stated,
“Accordingly, presently there is no requirement to grant permission qua the said Judicial Officer. However, the investigating agency is at liberty to carry on with the investigation with respect to the complaints received by them,”
Also Read: Bribery Case || Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Satara Judge Dhananjay Nikam
During today’s proceedings, the court was informed that Kumar had submitted additional documents, including a transcript of a conversation between the Special Judge and an ACB officer. The transcript indicated that the judge asked the ACB officer why he was being framed, to which the ACB officer allegedly referred to the judge’s adverse orders.
The counsel for the ACB informed the High Court that the trial judge had handed over the audio to Kumar.
Bhandari remarked,
“I will respond. This is an FIR named against the applicant (Kumar), they are traveling beyond this,”
A team from Justum Legal, led by advocate Ayush Jain, is representing Kumar.