NEW DELHI: A Special Judge (PC Act) posted at Rouse Avenue Court has been transferred to Rohini (North-West Delhi) days after the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) registered a bribery case against his ahlmad (record keeper), Mukesh Kumar, over alleged corruption in bail matters.
The ACB, on 16 May, booked Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), accusing him of demanding and accepting bribes from accused persons in exchange for facilitating their release on bail.
However, Kumar has vehemently denied the charges, claiming he has been falsely implicated by ACB officers as part of a broader conspiracy aimed at targeting the judge.
In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Kumar accused ACB Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and Assistant Commissioner of Police Jarnail Singh of attempting to settle personal scores with the judge over judicial orders that went against the agency.
In his plea, Kumar said the FIR was “a false and malicious FIR registered against the petitioner with the sole objective of arm-twisting the judiciary and using the petitioner as a tool to threaten the judge, and to compel the petitioner to help the vengeful officers of Anti-Corruption Branch to take retaliatory action against the judge because of their discomfort with judicial orders being passed against them.”
The petition further alleged that following the judge’s repeated criticism of flaws in ACB investigations, members of the court staff began receiving threats of being framed in false cases. Kumar claimed that, under pressure, he had even requested a transfer from the special judge’s courtroom.
He has also demanded a departmental enquiry against Joint Commissioner Verma and ACP Singh, accusing them of “underhand dealings, corruption, blackmailing, criminal intimidation, abuse of office, misuse of state machinery, forgery, and fabrication of documents, abduction, intimidation of witnesses, and destruction of official record.”
The plea, which seeks either the quashing of the FIR or transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was listed before Justice Amit Sharma on 20 May. The single-judge bench directed the State to file a status report or response by 29 May.
Kumar also informed a trial court that the FIR was registered shortly after the Special Judge, with whom he was posted, issued a show-cause notice to Joint Commissioner Verma, asking why a contempt reference should not be initiated against him before the High Court.
Notably, before the FIR was registered, the ACB had written to the Law Secretary of the Delhi government in January seeking permission to initiate an inquiry against the judge.
The agency had also submitted what it claimed was incriminating material against both the judge and Kumar to the High Court on its administrative side.
In February, the Delhi High Court responded that the agency was free to investigate the complaints but declined to permit any action against the judge at that stage due to lack of sufficient material.
"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 in its reply.
Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by the trial court on 22 May, although the court directed the ACB to comply with Section 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Sections 35(1)/(2) and 35(3)/(6) of the BNSS) before making any arrest.