In a case that has raised troubling questions about institutional accountability and alleged retaliatory actions within the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday permitted Mukesh Kumar, an ahlmad (record keeper) at Rouse Avenue Court, to withdraw his anticipatory bail application and a separate petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him.
Justice Tejas Karia disposed of the petitions as withdrawn, while granting Kumar liberty to file fresh applications in due course. The Court also clarified that the investigation would continue unhindered, in accordance with law.
Kumar, who has been accused of soliciting bribes in exchange for facilitating bail orders, had approached the Court alleging procedural impropriety and mala fide intent behind the registration of the FIR. Represented by senior advocate Mohit Mathur, Kumar contended that the timing of the FIR, filed on May 16, 2025, suggested it was a retaliatory move, following adverse judicial remarks made by a Special Judge against ACB officials. That judge, notably, was transferred shortly thereafter in an unrelated inquiry concerning alleged irregularities in granting bail in a GST-linked matter.
During earlier proceedings, the High Court had denied accused’s interim protection from arrest, noting that the allegations pertained to serious misuse of judicial office. The Court observed: “The allegations are extremely serious. There is concrete evidence on record. This involves a member of our own staff, which makes the matter even more grave.” It had also directed the ACB to submit a status report, which the agency claimed had already been placed before the Principal Secretary (Law) in January 2025 and later shared with the High Court’s Administrative Committee.
Adding further complexity, Kumar placed reliance on an audio clip purportedly featuring a senior ACB officer discussing plans to implicate a judge in retaliation for unfavorable judicial orders. This disclosure has sparked concerns over potential abuse of authority within the investigating agency itself.
Kumar has also sought transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), urging the Court to entrust the probe to a single officer in line with established judicial precedent aimed at ensuring independence and coherence in investigation. He has additionally invoked Section 11(2) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, asserting that the FIR constitutes an act of reprisal for disclosures made in the public interest.
Among other reliefs sought is the initiation of departmental proceedings against senior ACB officials, including the Joint Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police, for alleged acts of intimidation, evidence tampering, and abuse of office.
While Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea was previously dismissed on May 22 by the Special Judge, the trial court did mandate that any arrest must be preceded by a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source Link
Picture Source :