World
India
A major controversy has rocked the Delhi judicial system after reports claimed that a court staffer was booked for allegedly demanding crores of rupees in bribes in exchange for bail. The scandal, which has reportedly led to the transfer of a Special Judge and a flurry of legal action, has exposed serious cracks in court procedures and raised alarming concerns about judicial integrity.
At the heart of the case is Mukesh Kumar, the ahlmad (record keeper) of a special court at Rouse Avenue, who has been accused of soliciting massive bribes on behalf of the judge he worked under. The judge—who has not been named in official records—was recently transferred from the Rouse Avenue Court to another posting, as confirmed by Bar & Bench.
How It All Began: Anonymous Complaints and Secret Recordings
It started with a complaint sent to Delhi’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on December 30, 2024, by Prasoon Vashishtha, an advocate and the brother-in-law of Babita Sharma, a key accused in a 2021 GST fraud case. In his letter, Vashishtha alleged that officials from the court had approached the family demanding ₹85 lakh for Babita Sharma’s bail and ₹1 crore each for three other accused persons—Raj Singh Saini, Mukesh Saini, and Narendra Saini.
“They called me into the room adjacent to court no. 608 and demanded Rs 85 lakh for Ms Sharma and Rs 1 crore each for other accused — Raj Singh Saini, Mukesh Saini, and Narendra Saini,” Vashishtha wrote, as reported by ThePrint.
When the family refused to pay, Sharma’s bail was allegedly delayed for over a month and eventually rejected. After they approached the Delhi High Court and secured relief, they were allegedly warned that the judge would “do everything adverse within his powers” unless they withdrew the application and paid ₹1 crore.
Further Allegations and an FIR
A second complaint followed on January 20, this time from accused Vikesh Bansal, who alleged that he was contacted by Mukesh Kumar and asked to pay ₹15–₹20 lakh per accused for regular bail—even though he was already on interim bail from the High Court.
Bansal provided audio recordings of the interaction, which were transcribed in front of a witness. In the conversations, bribe amounts ranging from ₹10 lakh to ₹1 crore were allegedly discussed. Another accused, Vishal, reportedly claimed that he had paid ₹40 lakh to secure bail, and that the Saini brothers had paid ₹1 crore each.
On January 29, the ACB wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, seeking permission to investigate the Special Judge as well. The letter included details from both complaints and referenced audio recordings that appeared to back up the claims.
“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,” the ACB wrote in its letter, as reported by The Indian Express.
Delhi High Court Says “Not Enough Evidence” Against Judge
The ACB’s request was passed on to the Delhi High Court. On February 14, the Registrar (Vigilance) replied, stating that there was “no sufficient material” to take action against the judge at this time. However, the ACB was told it could continue investigating and come back if new evidence emerged.
“If, during the course of the investigation, any material is collected that indicates the involvement of the said judicial officer… the investigating agency is at liberty to make a fresh request,” the court said in its response.
FIR Registered, Bail Denied
On May 16, the ACB formally registered an FIR under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against Mukesh Kumar. A chartered accountant named Vishal, who allegedly paid a bribe, was also booked.
Mukesh moved for anticipatory bail, claiming he was being falsely implicated. During the hearing, his lawyers argued that the FIR was “fabricated” and that the ACB was “trying to frame” the judge in retaliation for judicial orders that had gone against the agency.
“The FIR is a false and malicious FIR registered against the petitioner with the sole objective of arm-twisting the judiciary,” the defense said in court, according to Bar & Bench.
However, the State opposed the bail, claiming that Mukesh was the “prime offender” and had tried to influence witnesses. It was also alleged that he handed a written slip to one of the complainants, linking him directly to the bribery demand.
On May 22, a Delhi court rejected Mukesh Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea.
Petition Filed for Probe Transfer to CBI
Mukesh Kumar has since filed a petition in the Delhi High Court reportedly seeking either the quashing of the FIR or transfer of the investigation to the CBI. His plea accuses two senior ACB officers—Joint Commissioner Madhur Verma and ACP Jarnail Singh—of trying to settle personal scores.
“An unfortunate case where two officers controlling a law enforcement agency threaten and attempt to falsely implicate court officers in retaliation for judicial orders,” the petition says.
According to reports, Mukesh has also requested a departmental inquiry into the officers, alleging “corruption, blackmail, criminal intimidation, abuse of office, forgery, and destruction of records.”
As per reports, the Delhi High Court has asked the State to file a status report by May 29, and the case continues to unfold. The spotlight remains firmly on the integrity of judicial institutions and the role of investigative agencies.
The reported transfer of the Special Judge on May 20 adds another layer to this already tangled controversy.
ALSO READ: What Is Amrit Bharat Station Scheme? All You Need To Know About The 103 Redeveloped Railway Stations
