Delhi HC Transfers Rouse Avenue Judge After Bribery FIR Against Ahlmad

Delhi HC Transfers Rouse Avenue Judge After Bribery FIR Against Ahlmad
X
The ahlmad had also moved the trial court seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on May 22.

Amid allegations that a Special Judge demanded a bribe for granting bail, the Delhi High Court recently transferred the judge from Rouse Avenue Court to North-West Rohini.

The instant 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.

The High Court had said that the material on record was insufficient to grant permission to probe the judge. However, it allowed the ACB to proceed with its investigation.

On May 16, the 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.

A bench led by Justice Amit Sharma was hearing Ahmad's plea seeking quashing of the FIR.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for the petitioner, 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.

The Court asked the Senior Counsel appearing for the State to submit a status report and listed the matter for May 29.

"Issue notice. 7. Learned ASC (Crl.) for the State/respondent No.1 accepts notice. Let a status report/response be filed before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel on appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3/complainant, who appears on advance notice, also accepts notice. 9. List on 29.05.2025," the court directed.

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



Tags

Next Story