The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a status report from the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) on its ongoing investigation into the bribery allegations against an ahlmad (record keeper) of Rouse Avenue Court..The High Court had recently transferred a Special Judge (PC Act) from the Rouse Avenue Court to North-West, Rohini after the ahlmad Mukesh Kumar was booked. Kumar has alleged a plot to frame the judge.Today, Kumar's anticipatory bail plea was listed for hearing before Justice Amit Sharma who declined to grant any interim protection from arrest to the accused. "Very, very serious allegations. The evidence has come on record. A person from our own staff... this is something very serious," the Court remarked after Kumar's counsel sought interim protection from arrest.The Court listed the plea for hearing on May 29, the date Kumar's petition seeking quashing of the FIR is also listed. "We will dispose it of," the single-judge said, while declining to pass any interim protection order. .Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Maninder Singh appeared for Kumar. Mathur submitted that the ACB officer against whom Kumar had complained in January has been made the Investigating Officer of the case."What fairness can I expect," he added.Additional Standing Counsel Sanjay Bhandari in response said that Kumar was directly involved in the bribery. "There is a hand written slip which he initially gave that how the things have to go on," he said.Mathur argued that Kumar has joined investigation at least seven times since February. "There are criss-cross complaints," he added..ACB on May 16 registered a case against the Kumar under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It has been alleged that the ahlmad had demanded and received bribes from certain accused to ensure their bail. Prior to the registration of the FIR, the ACB had in January written to the Law Secretary of Delhi government seeking permission to probe the judge and also submitted the alleged material against him and the court official to the High Court on administrative side. As per the ACB, the High Court in February responded that the investigating agency was at liberty to probe the allegations further. However, the High Court was also of the view that ACB then did not have "sufficient material" against the judge for it to grant permission against the judge."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 wrote in response..During today's hearing, the Court was told that Kumar has submitted additional documents containing a transcript of a conversation between the Special Judge and an ACB officer. As per the transcript, the judge had asked the ACB officer that why he was being framed. In response, the ACB officer is stated to have referred to the judge's adverse orders.The counsel representing the ACB told the High Court that the trial judge had handed over the audio to Kumar. "I will respond. This is FIR named qua applicant (Kumar), they are traveling beyond this," Bhandari said.Senior Advocates Mukul Gupta, Mohit Mathur, Maninder Singh and Tanveer Ahmed Mir, with advocates Ayush Jain, Tushar Thakur, Yashovardhan Upadhyay, Shahwat Sarin and Vishwas Verma appeared for Kumar. Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Bhandari with advocates Arjit Sharma, Nikunj Bindal and Nishtha Dhall appeared for the State. Advocates Ramakant Gaur, Sneha Arya, Harish Gaur, Meenakshi Sahu, Roopini N and Sobiya Manzoor appeared for the complainant.[Read order]
