New Delhi: The Anti-Corruption Bureau of Delhi has made part of the probe transcripts of two conversations—one in which an ahlmad, or court record keeper, allegedly solicits a bribe from an accused in a GST case in exchange for a regular bail and another in which the accused discusses the alleged bribe with another accused in the same case. The ahlmad allegedly solicited crores in bribes on behalf of a sessions judge who, until recently, presided over a special CBI court in Rouse Avenue, Delhi.
In one recording, Vikesh Kumar Bansal, an accused seeking regular bail in the GST case, speaks with the ahlmad, Mukesh Kumar, who allegedly tells him “the work has to be done”, saying that otherwise “things will become difficult” for Vikesh. In the other conversation, Vikesh allegedly asks fellow accused Vishal to intervene and help negotiate the bribe amount, but Vishal says that “nothing can happen without payment”.
The conversations pertain to an alleged bribe payment to secure regular bail for three accused in the GST case—Vikesh, Promod, and Ankur. Vikesh is currently out on an interim bail, according to sources privy to the matter.
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Ayush Jain, representing Ahlmad Mukesh Kumar, said that some sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act used against his client do not apply in the case, as there was no clear demand for money.
“The investigating officer read the transcripts in court. Based on their contents, a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not stand since there is no explicit demand for money. In corruption cases, a clear, unequivocal demand is essential—it cannot be inferred merely from a conversation between two individuals discussing a demand,” he said.
He further alleged that an assistant commissioner of police (ACP) from the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) threatened the sessions judge to withdraw adverse orders passed earlier against the joint commissioner of the ACB, and its case is a misuse of power by the agency. “The transcript of the same has been shown to the courts,” Jain added. “This is an act of retaliation.”
An audio recording has surfaced, purportedly featuring an assistant commissioner of police-rank officer, the ACB investigating officer, where he acknowledges that the judge was ‘being framed’ as a direct act of retaliation for his critical remarks and strictures against the ACB officer. This recording has been filed before the Delhi High Court.
“An officer of the Anti-Corruption Branch issued a veiled threat to the judge, implying that if adverse orders continued against officers of the branch, there would be consequences,” Jain said.
‘Baat kharab hojaegi’
The first transcript submitted by the ACB starts with Vikesh asking Mukesh for two to three days to arrange the bribe amount. The ahlmad, however, says that in case of bail cancellation, Vikesh will not have a way out.
Vikesh says, “Sir, I also spoke to Vishal. I told him to give me two to three days. I will speak to the families of the other two—Promod and Ankur.”
Again, the ahlmad warns that the delay may prove costly. “In two or three days, things may change. ‘Baat kharab ho jaaegi (Things will go wrong).‘ If bail gets cancelled, you will not have a way out,” says Mukesh.
Vikesh, however, says he needs time to arrange the money. “I do not have that much cash readily available.”
The ahlmad presses further, questioning why Bansal has not yet contacted Promod’s and Ankur’s families. “Why have you not spoken to them yet? I called you the other day for this only. Let me know by evening,” says Mukesh.
He also instructs Vikesh to meet in person in court. “Come and meet me at the court in the evening—I will tell you the full story. Keep all this to yourself. It should not reach your lawyer. We will know who you have spoken to.”
Also Read: Curtailing ED powers to quashing post-facto environmental clearances, Justice Oka’s indelible legacy
‘Nothing can happen without paying’
The second transcript is a 26-minute call between Vishal, arrested on 19 September 2024 in the GST case, and Vikesh, held in the same GST case on 17 October 2024. Vikesh recorded the conversation.
On the phone call, Vishal, a chartered accountant, and Vikesh discuss ways to secure regular bail without paying the hefty bribes allegedly demanded.
Vikesh shares that his pregnant wife is facing medical complications and that he cannot get the bribe amount demanded, but Vishal tells him to arrange for the money. Vishal tells Vikesh that his regular bail request will appear before the judge with all the other bail requests in the GST case, adding that “nothing can happen” without payment.
Vishal offers to help negotiate the amount with the ahlmad, adding that he, however, remains unsure how much the figure can fall. He informs Vikesh that Mukesh Kumar facilitated his “settlement” with the judge.
The two then discuss the specific bribes demanded. Vishal asks Vikesh, “How much are they demanding?” Vikesh replies, “Rs 20 lakh per person. They asked for Rs 50-60 lakh for three people—paid together.”
Sources say the ahlmad allegedly demanded a lump-sum bribe from a single party for the bail of multiple accused.
Mukesh demanded Rs 50-60 lakh from Vikesh because of the similar charges against him, Promod, and Ankur.
Throughout the conversation with Vishal, Vikesh repeatedly expresses concerns that though he may be able to arrange his share of the money, it would be impossible for him alone to arrange the full amount for all three.
“Ankur and Promod do not have the money. I gave him Rs 5,000 to 7,000 for his daily needs. Where will he get this kind of money? I am struggling, too. My wife is in the hospital—each ultrasound costs Rs 20,000. These guys have put us in a spot. Will the high court not help?” Vikesh asks.
Vikesh adds that even if the amount comes down to Rs 10 lakh per person, he will still likely fail to arrange it for all three.
Vishal responds, saying he paid Rs 40 lakh for himself and two other accused. He adds that another accused in the GST case—Raj Sinha—also paid Rs one crore to secure bail for himself and two other accused. Vishal claims to have helped coordinate that settlement.
Vishal also explains that if one accused gets regular bail, the others facing similar charges will likely get regular bail on similar grounds, so the total bribe for all has to be paid.
When Vikesh asks whether he can get regular bail without paying, Vishal replies, “It looks tough. You may face problems during the trial. But they will eventually have to grant bail. The issue is since the case will stay in this court, paying is the easier option.”
“It was the same with me. My bail came only after the others paid. I paid Rs 40 lakh for myself. The others paid Rs 30–35 lakh each,” Vishal says.
He then reiterates that without payment, “nothing can happen” but offers to help Bansal negotiate the amount with the ahlmad.
The duo expresses frustration with the judge over the call. One remarks sarcastically, “Let us become judges and mint money, easy money.”
The case
ACB Delhi registered an FIR against ahlmad Mukesh Kumar, chartered accountant Vishal, who allegedly paid a Rs 40 lakh bribe to secure regular bail, and a few others.
The ACB received its first complaint against the court staff in January this year from Prasoon Vashishtha, an advocate and brother-in-law of Babita Sharma. Arrested in the GST case in August last year, Babita applied for bail in the court concerned.
Prasoon alleged that in October of the same year, a few court officials approached them with an offer to secure bail for Babita and other accused in exchange for a substantial amount of money.
The ACB started a formal inquiry into the allegations before registering a case. It submitted a report to the principal secretary of the law, justice, and legal affairs department of the government of NCT of Delhi on 29 January 2025, with a request for a sanction to prosecute the judge.
On 13 February, the Delhi High Court said, currently, there was insufficient material to indicate the judge’s involvement but permitted the ACB to proceed with its probe into the complaint.
The high court further stated, “If, during the course of the investigation, any material is collected that indicates the involvement of the said judicial officer in the alleged incident and warrants action against him, the investigating agency is at liberty to make a fresh request to this Court seeking appropriate permission.”
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)