[Bribery Case] Rouse Avenue Ahlmad Withdraws Anticipatory Bail Plea Before Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, June 11, allowed the withdrawal of an anticipatory bail plea filed by a Rouse Avenue Court Ahalmad (court staff), who has been booked in a bribery case registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB).

The said withdrawal was allowed by a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Tejas Karia.

Importantly, the High Court had set June 11 to hear the anticipatory bail plea filed by the court staffer.

In the instant case, ahlmad Mukesh Kumar, who was posted with a Special Judge in Rouse Avenue Court, was accused by ACB officials in an FIR of demanding bribes in exchange for bail.

It is to be noted that the Delhi High Court recently transferred a Special Judge from Rouse Avenue Court to North-West Rohini amid allegations of demanding a bribe for granting bail.

Previously, a bench led by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had asked the ACB to change its investigating officer, as the same officer had been named by the ahalmad in his complaint.

Last hearing

On Tuesday, May 27, the High Court refused to grant interim protection from arrest to an ahlmad (record keeper) of Rouse Avenue Court who has been accused of receiving bribes for granting bail, stating that the allegations against him are of a very serious nature.

The plea seeking quashing of the FIR and interim protection from arrest, filed by the ahlmad, came up before a bench led by Justice Amit Sharma today.

The bench issued notice on the ahlmad's anticipatory bail plea. However, it denied granting any interim relief against the arrest.

The bench also sought a response from the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). During the proceedings, senior counsel appearing for the ahlmad urged the court to grant interim relief on account of the fact that the probe had not been fair. The matter will now be heard on May 29.

The case arose in January when the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Delhi Police sought permission from the Delhi government's Law Secretary to investigate a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

High Court, however, held that the material on record was insufficient to grant permission to probe the judge. Nevertheless, it allowed the ACB to proceed with its investigation.

On May 16, the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the Special Judge’s ahlmad (record keeper), Mukesh Kumar, accusing him of demanding bribes from accused persons in exchange for securing their bail.

Seeking anticipatory bail, Kumar had filed a plea before the trial court, which was dismissed on May 22 after the public prosecutor told the court that his custodial interrogation was necessary. Earlier, the High Court heard Ahlmad's plea seeking quashing of the FIR.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for the petitioner, had contended that the FIR was filed after the judge had passed an unfavourable order against the Joint Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Branch. He further submitted that the present petitioner was posted as an ahlmad in the said court.

On the other hand, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari submitted that relevant materials had already been placed before the Principal Secretary (Law), GNCTD, and later submitted to the High Court’s Administrative Committee. He argued that there was sufficient material to warrant an investigation.

Case Title: MUKESH KUMAR VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.