Delhi Judge transferred after court staff booked for bribery
A Special Judge (PC Act) of the Rouse Avenue Court was transferred by the Delhi High Court to Rohini after the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) booked the judge’s ahlmad (record keeper), Mukesh Kumar, in a bribery case related to bail matters.
Kumar was booked on May 16 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Anti-Corruption Branch alleges that he demanded and accepted bribes from accused persons in exchange for facilitating bail.
However, Kumar has denied the charges and claimed he is being falsely implicated in a conspiracy aimed at targeting the judge. He alleged that ACB Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and ACP Jarnail Singh were trying to settle personal scores with the judge over adverse court orders against the agency.
In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Kumar called the FIR “false and malicious” and said it was meant to pressure the judiciary. He claimed that he was being used as a pawn to intimidate the judge, describing the case as a serious attack on judicial independence.
The petition also alleged that after the judge pointed out flaws in the ACB investigations, court staff started receiving threats of false cases. Kumar said he had even asked to be transferred from the judge’s court due to this pressure.
He further demanded a departmental inquiry against the ACB officers, accusing them of misconduct, including corruption, blackmail, criminal intimidation, misuse of power, forgery and even destruction of official records.
Kumar asked the High Court to either quash the FIR or transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). His petition was listed before Justice Amit Sharma on May 20. The court has asked the state to submit a status report by May 29.
Kumar also told a trial court that the FIR was filed soon after the Special Judge issued a show-cause notice to Joint Commissioner Verma, questioning why contempt proceedings shouldn’t be initiated against him.
Before the FIR, in January, the ACB had approached the Delhi government’s Law Secretary, seeking permission to investigate the judge. It also submitted what it claimed was incriminating evidence against both the judge and Kumar to the Delhi High Court’s administrative side.
In February, the High Court said there wasn’t enough material to allow action against the judge but permitted the ACB to continue investigating the complaints.
“Accordingly, presently there is no requirement to grant permission qua the said judicial officer. However, the investigating agency is at liberty to carry on with the investigation with respect to the complaints received by them,” the High Court stated.
Kumar’s request for anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court on May 22. However, the court directed the ACB to follow legal procedures under Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC (now corresponding to Sections 35(1)/(2) and 35(3)/(6) of the BNSS) before arresting him.
Delhi