- विज्ञापन -
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to submit a status report regarding its ongoing investigation into bribery allegations against an ahlmad (record keeper) of the Rouse Avenue Court.
During the hearing, Justice Amit Sharma declined to grant interim protection from arrest to the accused, Kumar, whose anticipatory bail plea was listed before the High Court.
“The allegations are extremely serious. There is concrete evidence on record. This involves a member of our own staff, which makes the matter even more grave,” the High Court observed when Kumar’s counsel sought protection from arrest.
The plea has been scheduled for hearing on May 29, the same date as Kumar’s petition seeking quashing of the FIR. “We will dispose of it,” remarked the judge while refusing to issue an interim relief order.
Meanwhile, an audio recording submitted to the HC allegedly reveals a senior ACB official discussing attempts to frame a judge in response to judicial orders that were critical of the agency’s conduct.
These revelations have intensified concerns regarding alleged misuse of power within the ACB. It has been alleged that the FIR against the court staff handling cases related to the Special Judge was filed in retaliation for unfavourable rulings against ACB officials.
Amidst the controversy, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered the transfer of a Special Judge from Rouse Avenue Court over allegations of demanding bribes in exchange for granting bail to accused individuals in a GST-related case registered in 2023. The FIR against the court staff (record keeper) was filed on May 16, 2025, under provisions related to corruption.
The High Court issued the transfer order for the concerned Special Judge on May 20. Following this, the accused court staff sought quashing of the FIR, but the High Court did not grant immediate relief, though it did issue a notice to the State.
During proceedings before Justice Amit Mahajan on May 20, the additional counsel for the State informed the Court that relevant material had been sent to the Principal Secretary of Law, Government of NCT Delhi, in January 2025.
This information was later submitted to the Administrative Committee of the High Court via the Registrar General. The State argued that sufficient material exists to justify the allegations in the FIR, necessitating further investigation.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, representing the petitioner, contended that the FIR was registered following an order on May 16, 2025, by the Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-02 at Rouse Avenue Courts. That order had issued a show-cause notice to the Joint Commissioner of the ACB, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The petitioner, who was posted as an ahlmad (record keeper) in the concerned court, maintains that the FIR against him was registered on the same day.
The High Court has scheduled the matter for hearing on May 29.
The petitioner has requested the High Court to transfer the case from the ACB to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fair and impartial probe. Additionally, he has sought the clubbing of allegations against him so that they may be investigated by the same CBI officer, in accordance with Supreme Court directives.
The petitioner has further urged the Court to order a departmental inquiry against two ACB officials–Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and ACP Jarnail Singh–over allegations of corruption, blackmail, intimidation, misuse of office, forgery, document fabrication, witness intimidation, and destruction of official records.
Additionally, he has sought protection from victimization by ACB officers under Section 11(2) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011.
