New Delhi: Booked by Delhi’s Anti-Corruption Branch for allegedly soliciting bribes on behalf of a sessions judge in exchange for bail to at least six individuals accused in a GST evasion case, a Delhi court staffer has moved the Delhi High Court seeking independent probe by Central Bureau of Investigation, and departmental enquiries against senior officers of the ACB for their attempts to “frame” the judge.
In his writ petition, the court’s ahlmad, identified as Mukesh Kumar, alleged that he was booked on 16 May—the same day the judge of the special CBI court, where he was posted, passed an adverse order issuing a show cause notice to a senior ACB officer in an unrelated case, asking why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him before the high court.
The petitioner cited this instance to illustrate how adverse orders against ACB officers were being met with retaliation, claiming that this is why both he and the judge were targeted.
His team of counsels made these alternate prayers before the high court until it heard the original plea of quashing the case against him and a chartered accountant on the charge of exchanging a bribe of Rs 40 lakh.
His counsel, Ayush Jain, said that an audio clip—purportedly establishing an admission by ACB’s investigating officer that the “practical sense” behind “framing” the judge was that there were multiple orders questioning investigations being carried out by ACB—has also been submitted before the court.
“This FIR is a classic case of abuse of process of law. In fact, the judge has in the past issued a show cause for contempt against a senior ACB officer in a separate case. Many such adverse orders have been passed by the concerned judge against ACB and that is why he is now being targeted,” Jain told ThePrint.
On the contrary, the counsels appearing for the ACB refuted the allegations, citing sufficient materials on record to justify the claims made in the FIR, and said that prior information had already been shared with the Delhi government and the high court itself.
As ThePrint previously reported, it all began with a complaint from the counsel of one Babita Sharma, who was arrested in August 2024 in a GST case and had applied for bail in the sessions judge’s court.
In his complaint that formed the basis of the FIR, advocate Prasoon Vashishtha alleged that a few court officials had approached him in October last year with an offer to secure bail for Sharma and the other accused in exchange for a substantial sum. He further alleged that Sharma’s bail application had been “unjustly prolonged”, and eventually “dismissed” upon refusal to pay a bribe.
However, as Vashishtha could not substantiate his allegations, another accused in the same case, Vikesh Kumar Bansal, submitted an audio recording, allegedly capturing the staff member demanding a bribe, prompting the ACB to initiate an inquiry.
The accused sessions judge, until recently, presided over a special CBI court at Rouse Avenue.
Also Read: ‘Cash for bail’: Judge transferred amid Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch probe, court staffer booked
Complaint to CBI
Kumar, the ahlmad, has also filed a complaint with the CBI director, seeking a probe into the matter. “A complaint has been made through e-mail on 19 May to the CBI director,” his counsel, Jain, told ThePrint.
“These persons rampantly indulge in activity involving underhand dealings, and are notorious for corruption (in respect of which many complaints have been received in my earlier court). What I wish to point out through this complaint is that for taking up the courage to expose one of their acts and for my refusal to aid them in execution of their plans, not only was I hounded, I was used as a tool to threaten and to settle scores with a judicial authority,” Kumar has alleged in his complaint to CBI.
“The abovenamed persons have maliciously abused their official positions and have interfered with judicial proceedings, threatened the judge and every court officer (including the public prosecutor) and staff with a view to covering up their acts of corruption.”
The ahlmad further alleged that the judge, with whom he was posted, had found six categories of flaws in the investigation of cases conducted by ACB, and sent orders recording his observations to the Chief Secretary, which, Kumar claimed, annoyed the top officers of the ACB.
Kumar further said that the officers also allegedly approached him to ask the judge to mend his ways and stop making adverse remarks in orders linked to matters of ACB, and followed with threats of implication and arrest for not following their instructions.
The high court heard the matter briefly on 20 May and issued notice to all parties, including the Delhi government, seeking a status report before listing the matter for further hearing on 29 May.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: ‘Cash for bail’: Transcripts with ACB show judge’s court ahlmad told inmate, ‘baat kharab hojaegi’