NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to submit a status report on its investigation into bribery allegations against Mukesh Kumar, an ahlmad (record keeper) posted at the Rouse Avenue Court.
Kumar is accused of taking bribes from certain accused individuals in exchange for helping them secure bail. The ACB registered a case against him on May 16 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Prior to this, the ACB had written to the Delhi government’s Law Secretary in January, seeking approval to investigate a judge linked to the case. While the High Court permitted further investigation against court officials, it found the evidence insufficient to initiate action against the judge.
The matter gained further attention after the Delhi High Court administratively transferred the Special Judge (PC Act), who had been posted at Rouse Avenue, to North-West Rohini. Kumar has claimed that there is a conspiracy to falsely implicate the judge.
On Tuesday, Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea came up before Justice Amit Sharma. However, the court refused to offer him any temporary protection from arrest. Calling the matter “very serious,” the judge expressed concern that such allegations were being made against a court staff member. The judge added that evidence had already surfaced.
Senior advocates Mohit Mathur and Maninder Singh represented Kumar. Mathur argued that the ACB officer investigating the case is the same officer against whom Kumar had earlier filed a complaint. “How can I expect fairness?” he asked, questioning the impartiality of the investigation.
Mathur further stated that Kumar had cooperated fully with the investigation, appearing before the authorities at least seven times since February. He also mentioned the existence of multiple counter-complaints in the case.
On the other hand, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjay Bhandari, representing the ACB, insisted that Kumar was directly involved in the bribery. He claimed Kumar had handed over a handwritten note outlining how the process should unfold.
During the hearing, the Court was informed that Kumar had submitted additional documents, including a transcript of a conversation between the Special Judge and an ACB officer. In the conversation, the judge reportedly asked why he was being targeted. The officer allegedly responded by referring to the judge’s earlier unfavourable court orders. The HC has listed the matter for further hearing on May 29, when Kumar’s plea to quash the FIR will also be considered.