In a significant development that casts a shadow over the judiciary, a Special Judge at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has been transferred following allegations of bribe demands in exchange for granting bail. While the Delhi High Court found the current evidence against the judge insufficient, it has allowed the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to continue its investigation.
The controversy began on January 29, when the ACB wrote to the Principal Secretary of the Department of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, seeking permission to initiate a probe against the judge and the court’s ahlmad (clerk). The request, which included audio recordings and multiple complaints, alleged that court officials demanded up to Rs 1 crore for bail.
According to the ACB, the allegations surfaced in connection with a 2023 GST fraud case, where 16 accused, including a GST officer and advocates, were arrested. After bail pleas were delayed or dismissed, one of the accused’s relatives claimed they were asked to pay hefty bribes for favorable outcomes. Refusing to pay reportedly led to bail being denied, while pressure continued, including threats and further demands.
Despite these serious claims, the Delhi High Court, in its response on February 14, concluded that there was “no sufficient material” to permit action against the judge at that point. However, it encouraged the ACB to resume its probe and return with more evidence if found.
On May 16, the ACB filed an FIR against the ahlmad under the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing both complaints and corroborative recordings. The Special Judge was subsequently transferred on May 20.
In response to the FIR, the ahlmad sought anticipatory bail, alleging that the charges were fabricated and aimed at framing the judge. However, on May 22, a Rouse Avenue Court rejected his plea, siding with the prosecution’s argument that he was a key offender and posed a risk to the evidence.
The Indian Express reached out to both the High Court Registrar and the judge in question. While the former did not respond, the judge declined to comment.
The case, raising serious questions about the integrity of judicial processes, continues to unfold as the ACB presses forward with its investigation.
