On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court directed the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to submit a status report on its ongoing investigation into bribery allegations against an ahlmad (record keeper) at the Rouse Avenue Court. The court also refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused, while emphasizing the seriousness of the charges.
The bribery allegations against Kumar, a court staff member, were made in connection with his alleged involvement in soliciting bribes from litigants, undermining the dignity of the judicial process. The case was registered under provisions related to corruption, and Kumar sought anticipatory bail in the face of impending arrest.
On Tuesday, Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea was heard by Justice Amit Sharma, who declined to grant any interim protection. “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,” remarked the judge while rejecting the plea for protection from arrest.
During the hearing, Kumar’s counsel requested interim protection from arrest, but the court was not persuaded to grant any relief. The anticipatory bail plea has been listed for hearing on May 29, the same day as Kumar’s petition seeking the quashing of the FIR.
An audio recording was also submitted to the court, which allegedly reveals a senior ACB official discussing attempts to frame a judge in retaliation for critical judicial orders against the agency. These revelations have intensified concerns regarding the misuse of power within the ACB, with the allegation that the FIR against the court staff was filed in retaliation for unfavorable rulings against ACB officials.
The High Court had recently ordered the transfer of a Special Judge from Rouse Avenue Court over allegations of demanding bribes in exchange for granting bail in a GST-related case. The FIR against Kumar was filed on May 16, 2025, under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
The High Court’s transfer order for the Special Judge was issued on May 20. In the same proceedings, the court did not grant immediate relief to Kumar, though it did issue a notice to the State regarding the quashing of the FIR.
The State’s additional counsel informed the court that relevant material regarding the case had been submitted to the Principal Secretary of Law, Government of NCT Delhi, in January 2025. This information was subsequently shared with the Administrative Committee of the High Court. The State argued that the material justifies the allegations in the FIR and necessitates further investigation.
Kumar's counsel, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, contended that the FIR was filed following a May 16, 2025, order from the Special Judge (PC Act), which had issued a show-cause notice to the Joint Commissioner of the ACB, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. Mathur argued that the FIR against Kumar was filed on the same day.
Kumar has further requested that the investigation be transferred from the ACB to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fair and impartial probe. Additionally, he has sought the consolidation of allegations against him to be investigated by the same CBI officer, in accordance with Supreme Court directives. He has also asked for a departmental inquiry against two ACB officials, Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and ACP Jarnail Singh, over allegations of corruption, blackmail, intimidation, and other misconduct.
Kumar also seeks protection from victimization by ACB officers under Section 11(2) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011.
While Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by the Special Judge on May 22, the Court directed the ACB to issue prior notice under Section 41A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) in the event of an arrest.
The case is scheduled for further hearings on May 29, 2025, when the High Court will consider both Kumar’s petition to quash the FIR and his request for a transfer of investigation to the CBI.
Source Link
Picture Source :
