Delhi High Court Delves into Bribery Allegations Amid ACB Controversy

The Delhi High Court has instructed the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to present a status report on its investigation into bribery accusations targeting an ahlmad, or record keeper, of the Rouse Avenue Court. Justice Amit Sharma, presiding over the case, declined interim arrest protection for Kumar, the accused, whose anticipatory bail request is under consideration.

Justice Sharma emphasized the gravity of the allegations, particularly since they implicate a court staff member. The plea is set for further hearing on May 29, coinciding with another petition by Kumar to annul the FIR filed against him. "We will dispose of it," stated the judge, rejecting immediate relief.

An audio clip submitted to the High Court purportedly captures an ACB senior official discussing attempts to incriminate a judge following critical judicial orders against the agency. This revelation has heightened concerns about potential power misuse within ACB, with claims that the FIR against the court staff was retribution for unfavorable judgments.

In the backdrop, the High Court recently ordered the transfer of a Special Judge from the Rouse Avenue Court amidst accusations of soliciting bribes for bail in a GST-related case. The court staff FIR, lodged on May 16, 2025, under corruption laws, prompted the Special Judge's transfer on May 20. While the court did not grant immediate FIR dismissal, it issued a notice to the State.

During a May 20 session before Justice Amit Mahajan, the State's additional legal counsel informed the Court about pertinent evidence forwarded to the Principal Secretary of Law, Delhi, previously, which was then relayed to the High Court's Administrative Committee. The State insists ample grounds warranting the FIR and further scrutiny exist.

Leading attorney Mohit Mathur, representing Kumar, contended that the FIR was initiated following a May 16, 2025, directive from the Special Judge (PC Act) at Rouse Avenue Courts, which involved summoning the ACB's Joint Commissioner for potential contempt proceedings. Kumar, serving as a record keeper in the implicated court, claims the FIR coincided with the directive date. The High Court has slated the issue for a May 29 hearing.

Kumar has requested the High Court to shift the investigation from the ACB to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for impartial examination. He also advocates for consolidating accusations against him for CBI assessment, aligning with Supreme Court mandates. Furthermore, Kumar urges the Court to launch departmental inquiries against two ACB officers—Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and ACP Jarnail Singh— for alleged corruption, coercion, office abuse, forgery, document falsification, witness tampering, and destruction of official paperwork.

He seeks protection from ACB officer victimization under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011. Meanwhile, Kumar's trial court anticipatory bail plea was rejected on May 22 by Special Judge Deepali Sharma, though she instructed the ACB to provide prior notice under Section 41A CrPC for any arrest (ANI).

(With inputs from agencies.)