In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Kumar claimed that ACB Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and Assistant Commissioner of Police Jarnail Singh were trying to settle personal scores with the judge due to unfavourable judicial orders passed against the agency.
NEW DELHI: A Special Judge handling Prevention of Corruption Act cases at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has been suddenly transferred to Rohini Court (North-West Delhi), just days after a bribery case was registered against his ahlmad (record keeper), Mukesh Kumar, by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB).
The ACB registered an FIR on 16 May, accusing Kumar of demanding and accepting bribes from undertrial accused in exchange for helping them secure bail. The case has been registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Mukesh Kumar has strongly denied the allegations, claiming that the ACB has falsely implicated him as part of a bigger plan to pressurise the judge. According to Kumar, the case is part of an organised effort to intimidate the judiciary.
In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Kumar claimed that ACB Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and Assistant Commissioner of Police Jarnail Singh were trying to settle personal scores with the judge due to unfavourable judicial orders passed against the agency.
In his plea, Kumar stated that the FIR was
“a false and malicious FIR registered against the petitioner with the sole objective of arm-twisting the judiciary and using the petitioner as a tool to threaten the judge, and to compel the petitioner to help the vengeful officers of Anti-Corruption Branch to take retaliatory action against the judge because of their discomfort with judicial orders being passed against them.”
The petition further accused the ACB of threatening court staff members after the judge reportedly criticised ACB investigations. According to Kumar,
“following the judge’s repeated criticism of flaws in ACB investigations, members of the court staff began receiving threats of being framed in false cases.”
Kumar even claimed that due to mounting pressure, he had requested to be transferred from the special judge’s court. He has also demanded a departmental inquiry against the senior ACB officers, accusing them of serious misconduct, including:
“underhand dealings, corruption, blackmailing, criminal intimidation, abuse of office, misuse of state machinery, forgery, and fabrication of documents, abduction, intimidation of witnesses, and destruction of official record.”
The plea was listed before Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court on 20 May, who directed the State to submit a status report or response by 29 May.
Kumar also told a trial court that the FIR was filed shortly after the judge he was posted with issued a show-cause notice to Joint Commissioner Verma, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be started against him in the High Court.
Interestingly, even before the FIR was filed, the ACB had approached the Delhi Government’s Law Secretary in January, seeking permission to begin an inquiry against the judge. The agency also submitted what it claimed was incriminating material against the judge and Kumar to the Delhi High Court on its administrative side.
In February, the High Court clarified that the ACB could investigate the complaints but denied permission to act against the judge at that time due to lack of evidence.
The High Court said:
“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.”
Mukesh Kumar had applied for anticipatory bail, but his plea was rejected by the trial court on 22 May. However, the court ordered the ACB to strictly follow arrest rules laid out in the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 41 and 41A, which correspond to Sections 35(1)/(2) and 35(3)/(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
