Bribes for bail: Delhi anti-corruption unit flagged judge’s ‘involvement’, High Court transfers him

On May 16, the ACB registered an FIR against the court ahlmad.

On May 20, the Special Judge was transferred from Rouse Avenue Court to another court.

Queries sent to the Registrar of the Delhi High Court did not elicit a response. The Indian Express also reached out to the judge in question, who declined to comment on the matter.

The Indian Express has learnt that the ACB letter dated January 29 had the subject line: “Regarding complaints received against officials of Rouse Avenue district courts, ahlmad and the Special Judge, along with audio recording of conversations.”

In the letter, the ACB mentioned a case registered in April 2023 against a GST officer for allegedly sanctioning GST refunds to fake/bogus firms in 2021. Sixteen people — including the GST officer, three advocates, a chartered accountant and two transporters — were arrested by the ACB and produced before the Special Judge’s court, which sent them to judicial custody. Once the accused started filing bail applications, most of their applications were heard, deferred and kept reserved for different dates, the ACB noted.

The first complaint was received via email by the ACB on December 30, 2024, from a relative of the GST officer, alleging that they were approached by the court officials, demanding a bribe of Rs 85 lakh for her bail and Rs 1 crore for each of the other accused.

“(The relative) alleged that on refusal, the bail application was unjustly prolonged for more than a month, and later dismissed. Subsequently, they got relief from the Delhi High Court and were approached by one of the accused, allegedly threatening that the judge concerned would do everything adverse within his powers to prosecute her. He asked her to withdraw her application from the HC, pay Rs 1 crore, and she would be granted bail,” the ACB wrote.

Another complaint, sources said, was received on January 20 from a person who alleged he was approached by the court ahlmad in the first week of January, offering that three people accused in a case can get bail if they are ready to pay a bribe of Rs 15-20 lakh per person.

The ACB wrote in its letter that prima facie, the contents of the complaints and audio recordings corroborate the sequence of events pertaining to bail hearings, including postponements in the court concerned.

“In view of the facts of the case, the complaints, corroborative audio recordings, and the sequence of events surrounding the bail hearings, prima facie, indicate a serious misconduct involving demand and acceptance of bribes for granting bail to accused persons involved in such a sensitive case. The alleged involvement of court staff (and) the role attributed to the special judge raise grave concerns regarding the integrity of judicial proceedings in this case. Given the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter, it is requested that permission to investigate may kindly be sought from the appropriate authority,” it said.

On February 14,  the Principal Secretary of the Law department received a reply from the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Delhi High Court, which read, “As of now, there is no sufficient material regarding the involvement of an officer (Special Judge) in the alleged incident. Accordingly, presently, there is no requirement to grant permission qua the said judicial officer. However, the investigating agency is at liberty to carry on with the investigation with respect to the complaints received. I am further directed to inform you that if, during the course of investigation, any material is collected which shows the involvement of the said judicial officer in the alleged incident, warranting action against him, the investigating agency is at liberty to make a fresh request to this court seeking appropriate permission qua the said Judicial Officer.”

On May 16, the ACB registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the court ahlmad and also mentioned the reply of the Registrar (Vigilance) in it. The ahlmad filed an anticipatory bail in a Rouse Avenue court.

During the bail hearing, the advocates argued that the ACB had filed a “false fabricated FIR” against the ahlmad and had “tried to frame” the Special Judge to “settle a score with” him.

The Chief Public Prosecutor, who represented the State, opposed the bail on the grounds that the ahlmad was a prime offender and was likely to tamper with evidence. He also argued that a handwritten slip was allegedly provided by him to the complainant, which indicated his involvement in the alleged offence.

On May 22, the court rejected the ahlmad’s anticipatory bail application.