The Delhi High Court declined to grant interim protection from arrest to a Trial Court official accused in a corruption case, observing that the allegations warranted serious judicial scrutiny.
Justice Amit Sharma, while hearing the anticipatory bail plea filed by the court staff (ahlmad), noted that the accusations involved were of a grave nature and warranted custodial interrogation. The Court issued notice to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and directed it to file a detailed response.
Senior counsel representing the petitioner contended that the investigation was biased and urged the Court to extend interim relief. However, the Court deferred consideration of interim protection to May 29, the date on which the related petition seeking quashing of the FIR is also listed, and refrained from passing any immediate relief.
“These are serious charges. Material has come on record. The investigating agency is seeking custodial interrogation. The matter involves someone from the judicial establishment,” the Court observed orally.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the accused had participated in multiple inquiry sessions and highlighted that there were conflicting complaints in the matter. It was further contended that the FIR was an act of retaliation by the ACB after a judicial officer, before whom the ahlmad was posted, had issued a show cause notice to the ACB's Joint Commissioner for allegedly intiting court staff.
Opposing the plea, the public prosecutor argued that custodial interrogation was essential to unravel the larger conspiracy. Notably, the sessions court had earlier dismissed the anticipatory bail plea on May 22, concurring with the prosecution's stance.
The 38-year-old petitioner had served as an ahlmad in the Court of a special judge at Rouse Avenue District Court between September 14, 2023, and March 21, 2025. The FIR was registered by the ACB on May 16, following allegations that he demanded bribes for facilitating bail in certain cases.
In addition to seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner has also moved a separate petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. Alternatively, he has requested that the matter be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure an impartial inquiry.
It may be recalled that on February 14, the High Court’s administrative side had declined the ACB’s request to initiate an inquiry against the special judge concerned, citing lack of adequate material. However, the ACB was allowed to continue its investigation and was permitted to approach the Court again if any substantial evidence surfaced.
Subsequently, on May 20, the concerned judge was transferred from Rouse Avenue District Court to another posting pursuant to an administrative order of the High Court.
Source Link
Picture Source :
