The Delhi High Court recently transferred a Special Judge (PC Act) from the Rouse Avenue Court to North-West, Rohini, after the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) booked his ahlmad (record keeper) for bribery in bail matters. .The ahlmad on the other hand has alleged that the entire episode is part of the plot by certain ACB officers to implicate the judge who had passed unfavourable orders against the agency. The ACB on May 16 registered a case against the trial court’s ahlmad Mukesh 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. However, the ahlmad has alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case to settle the scores with the judge. He has named ACB Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and ACP Jarnail Singh and sought an inquiry against them. .Kumar recently told a trial court that the FIR was registered after the Special Judge, with whom Kumar was posted, issued a notice to Joint Commissioner Verma asking him to show cause why a contempt reference should not be made against him to the High Court.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. .In a petition moved before the High Court, Kumar has termed the allegations against him “an unfortunate case where two officers controlling a law enforcement agency” threaten and attempt to falsely implicate court officers in "retaliation for judicial orders which are not to their liking because they are aimed at holding the officers accountable for their deeds”.Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur, Tanvir Ahmed Mir and Maninder Singh appeared for Kumar..The petition seeking quashing of the FIR or transfer of probe to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was listed before Justice Amit Sharma on May 20 when the single-judge directed the State to file a status report or response before May 29..The case represents a serious attack on the independence of the judiciary and a gross abuse of power, the petitioner contended. “The FIR is 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 Court was told. .The petition also alleged that after the judge flagged various loopholes in the ACB investigations, the court staff was threatened with false cases. Kumar had even sought transfer from the special judge’s court due to the alleged pressures. He thus sought a departmental enquiry against ACB officers Verma and Singh for “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.”Kumar’s petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the trial court on May 22 with the direction to the ACB to comply with Section 41 and 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 35(1)/(2) and Section 35(3)/(6) of BNSS) before effecting any arrest..Senior Advocates Mathur, Mir and Singh, who represented Kumar before the High Court, were briefed by the Team of Justum Legal lead by Ayush Jain, Tushar Thakur, Yashovardhan Upadhyay, Shashwat Sarin and Vishwas Verma..Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari with advocates Arjit Sharma, Nikunj Bindal and Nishtha Dhall represented the State.Advocates Ramakant Gaur, Sneha Arya, Harshi Gaur, Sobiya Manzoor Pullo, Meenakshi Sahu, Roopini Nandam and Subhangi Bhardwaj represented the complainant. .[Read High Court order]
