New Delhi [India], June 11 (ANI): Mukesh Kumar, an ahlmad (record keeper) at Rouse Avenue Court, who is facing allegations of demanding bribes in exchange for granting bail, has withdrawn both his anticipatory bail petition and a plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him. The case, initiated by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), continues to unfold amid serious allegations of power misuse and retaliation.
During the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court stated that the application had been dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh one. The Court also directed the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.
Kumar’s legal counsel had urged the Court to instruct the ACB to comply with the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), including allowing the presence of a legal representative during questioning.
Previously, the High Court had directed the ACB to submit a status report on the ongoing investigation. The Court had also refused interim protection from arrest to Kumar, stating, “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.”
One of the most contentious elements of the case emerged when the Court was presented with an audio recording purportedly capturing a senior ACB official discussing plans to frame a judge in retaliation for judicial orders critical of the agency.
This revelation has intensified concerns about abuse of power within the ACB. Allegedly, the FIR against Kumar was lodged in response to adverse rulings by the Special Judge against ACB officials.
The FIR, filed on May 16, 2025, was registered under sections related to corruption. Notably, the High Court had, just days earlier, ordered the transfer of the Special Judge from Rouse Avenue Court over separate allegations involving bribes for bail in a 2023 GST-related case.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Kumar, argued that the FIR was lodged the same day the Special Judge (PC Act) issued a show-cause notice to the Joint Commissioner of ACB regarding possible contempt proceedings. Kumar, who worked in the judge’s court, contends that the timing of the FIR suggests it was retaliatory.
At a prior hearing on May 20 before Justice Amit Mahajan, the State informed the Court that materials justifying the FIR had been submitted to the Principal Secretary (Law) in January and subsequently sent to the High Court’s Administrative Committee.
Kumar has requested that the case be transferred from the ACB to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure a fair and impartial probe. He has also asked that all allegations against him be consolidated and investigated by a single CBI officer, as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Further, Kumar has urged the Court to initiate a departmental inquiry against ACB officials Joint Commissioner and ACP for alleged misconduct, including corruption, intimidation, forgery, and destruction of evidence.
He has also sought protection under Section 11(2) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, alleging victimization by the ACB.
His anticipatory bail plea before the trial court was earlier dismissed on May 22 by Special Judge Deepali Sharma, who, however, directed that the ACB must serve prior notice under Section 41A CrPC (Section 35 of BNSS) before making any arrest. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
