Delhi HC to hear court staffer’s plea seeking protection from arrest on June 11

Delhi HC denies immediate bail to court staffer Mukesh Kumar accused of bribery for bail facilitation; next hearing set for June 11.

The Delhi high court on Monday refused to immediately entertain a 38-year-old court staffer’s plea seeking protection from arrest for allegedly taking bribes in return for facilitating bail. The case was registered by the Delhi government’s Anti Corruption Branch (ACB).

A bench of justice Tejas Karia’s refusal came after ACB’s counsel sought additional time to place on record “substantial piece of evidence”. (HT Archive)

The accused was identified as Mukesh Kumar. A bench of justice Tejas Karia’s refusal came after ACB’s counsel sought additional time to place on record “substantial piece of evidence” and Kumar’s lawyer urged the court to direct ACB to not take coercive action until evidence was placed on record.

ACB’s standing counsel Sanjeev Bhandari also submitted that there was development in the probe and the latest status report filed by it also implicated Kumar’s wife, who was also a court staffer.

Considering the contention, justice Karia fixed June 11 as the next date to hear Kumar’s anticipatory bail application and directed ACB to file an additional status report till Tuesday. The court said that the material would have an impact on the pre-arrest bail.

“This application (anticipatory bail application) has been pending since May 23. There is no interim protection. For anticipatory bail, we will also have to look into the material (filed by ACB). We will hear you (Kumar) day after tomorrow, no further adjournment,” justice Karia remarked.

“List on June 11. In the meanwhile, Mr Sanjay Bhandari, additional standing counsel for ACB shall place on record an additional status report indicating the additional material by tomorrow,” the court said in its order.

ACB in January this year had written to the law secretary of the Delhi government seeking permission to prosecute a special judge of the Rouse Avenue court and Kumar after complaints were received that the judge would demand bribes to grant bails. Kumar, who worked in the same court, was accused of taking bribes on behalf of the judge. This request was forwarded to the Delhi high court. However, the high court in February refused to grant sanction to prosecute the judge, citing insufficient evidence. ACB was given permission to continue with the probe and approach the court if they later find evidence indicating the judge’s involvement.

On May 16, ACB registered an FIR against Kumar under sections 7 (public servant being bribed) and 13 (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 61 (criminal conspiracy) and 308 (extortion) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Four days later, Delhi high court on May 20, had transferred the special judge of the Rouse Avenue court to North West district “with immediate effect”. The judge was handling ACB cases pertaining to Goods and Services Tax evasion.

The court was hearing two petitions filed by Kumar. One challenged a city court’s May 22 order denying him anticipatory bail; the other sought quashing of the FIR and transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Kumar alleged in his plea that the FIR was a “counterblast” to judicial orders by the judge threatening contempt proceedings against ACB officials. He claimed that ACB, a principal litigant in several pending matters before the judge, had acted vindictively and that its officers had threatened him with dire consequences, prompting his earlier request for transfer.

On May 27, the high court declined to grant immediate protection from arrest, citing the seriousness of the allegations.

On June 6, ACB had told the high court that it had reconstituted a special team on June 3 to probe the case, a day after the high court asked ACB to consider replacing an officer against whom Kumar had earlier raised concerns.