New Delhi: A Delhi court staffer has been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly soliciting bribes worth crores of rupees on behalf of a sessions judge in exchange for bail to at least six individuals accused in a GST evasion case. The sessions judge until recently presided over a special CBI court at Rouse Avenue.
While the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Delhi government had also sought sanction to prosecute the judge, its request, passed on by the government to the Delhi High Court, was denied on grounds of insufficient evidence. However, the court said the ACB could approach the court again if any material is collected that indicates the judge’s involvement.
On 20 May, the special judge was transferred from Rouse Avenue to another court.
An FIR was registered on 16 May against the court’s ahlmad (record keeper), identified as Mukesh, along with a chartered accountant, Vishal, who had allegedly paid a bribe of Rs 40 lakh to secure bail.
The ACB received its first complaint against the court staffer in January from an individual named Prasoon Vashishtha, an advocate and brother-in-law of Babita Sharma, who was arrested last August in a GST case and had applied for bail in the sessions judge’s court.
According to the FIR—seen by ThePrint—Vashishtha alleged that in October last year, a few court officials approached them with an offer to secure bail for Sharma and the other accused in exchange for a substantial sum.
“They called me into the room adjacent to court no. 608 and demanded Rs 85 lakh for Ms Sharma and Rs 1 crore each for other accused—Raj Singh Saini, Mukesh Saini, and Narendra Saini,” he said in his complaint, now part of the FIR.
He further alleged that on his refusal to engage, Sharma’s bail application was “unjustly prolonged” and eventually “dismissed”.
It was further alleged that on two occasions, Raj Singh Saini approached their family and claimed he had obtained bail by paying a substantial bribe and urged them to do the same.
“The complainant alleged that they were informed that the judge would do everything adverse with his powers to persecute Babita Sharma,” a source familiar with the matter said.
They also alleged that the judge had issued a warning to keep Babita Sharma standing for hours each day of the hearing and that he would ensure she’d suffer “irreparable loss” if the judge’s demands were not met, the source added.
“The complainant alleged his family was told that if Babita pays Rs 1 crore now and withdraws her application from the high court then she would be granted bail and eventually discharged in the next six months,” this source further said.
Another complaint and an inquiry
According to sources in the Delhi government, the complainant, Vashishtha, was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the complaint.
Subsequently, another complaint was submitted to the ACB by Vikesh Kumar Bansal—another accused in the same GST evasion case—who submitted an audio recording allegedly capturing the staff member demanding a bribe.
Following this, the ACB launched a formal inquiry.
“Bansal’s complaint stated that he was contacted by Ahlmad Mukesh from Court Room No. 608 and asked to visit the court. At the court, Mukesh allegedly demanded Rs 15–20 lakh per accused for the grant of regular bail, even though Bansal was already on interim bail granted by the high court,” another source in the know said.
According to sources, Bansal also received a phone call from a co-accused, Vishal, who confirmed he had secured bail from the same court by paying Rs 40 lakh.
Vishal further claimed that the other accused—identified as the Saini brothers—paid Rs 1 crore, while transporters paid Rs 15 lakh each, and two individuals, including one Manoj, paid Rs 10 lakh each to obtain bail.
Police said Bansal provided audio recordings of these conversations to the ACB and three transcripts were prepared in the presence of a panch witness on 24 January.
A report was subsequently submitted to the principal secretary of the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, on 29 January.
Prosecution sanction request
When a request was made for sanction to prosecute the judge, the Delhi High Court, on 13 February, responded that there was currently insufficient material indicating the judge’s involvement. However, the court permitted the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation into the complaints.
“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,” the high court stated in response to the sanction request.
Following this, the ACB called the ahlmad for a statement. “We began an inquiry, but the ahlmad tried to evade it. In fact, he also attempted to influence witnesses, including those who had submitted recorded evidence against him. That’s why a case was registered and the chartered accountant was arrested,” a source said.
The source added that the combined contents of the two complaints, supported by corroborative audio evidence and contextual details surrounding the bail hearings, indicate “serious misconduct involving demands for and receipt of bribes by the court staff”.
A third source told ThePrint that the ahlmad also moved for anticipatory bail on 22 May, which was rejected by a Delhi court.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)