‘Bribe for bail' case: Delhi HC turns down clerk's plea for interim relief, says ‘very, very serious allegations'
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused interim relief to a court ahlmad (clerk or official) who sought protection from arrest in a 'bribery for bail' case. While seeking a status report from the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in the matter, the High Court noted that he was facing 'very, very serious allegations'.
The Indian Express on May 24 had reported that the ACB in January had sought permission from the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, to initiate a probe against a Special Judge in the Rouse Avenue Court and his court's ahlmad for the alleged demand and acceptance of bribes for granting bail to accused.
The request, however, was passed on to the High Court. Even as the HC turned down the request on February 14, saying the ACB did not have 'sufficient material' against the Special Judge, it asked the ACB to continue its investigation. The judge was later transferred from Rouse Avenue Court to another court.
On Tuesday, Justice Amit Sharma, while refusing to grant the clerk an interim protection from arrest, orally remarked, 'Very, very serious allegations… A person from our own staff, this is something very serious.'
Senior advocates Mohit Mathur and Maninder Singh, appearing for the accused, told the court that the investigating officer in the case is the ACB officer against whom he had complained in January. 'What fairness can I expect?' he asked the court.
The ACB had lodged an FIR against the clerk on May 16 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court was transferred on May 20.
Subsequently, the ahlmad filed for anticipatory bail in a Rouse Avenue court, which had rejected the plea on May 22. During the bail hearing, the ahlmad had argued that the ACB had filed a 'false fabricated FIR' against him and had 'tried to frame' the Special Judge to 'settle a score with' him.
The prosecution, on the other hand, opposed the bail, underlining that the clerk was a prime offender and was likely to tamper with evidence. It was also argued that a handwritten slip was allegedly provided by him to the complainant, which indicated his involvement in the alleged offence.
The High Court has posted the matter next for May 29.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
"Children Deserve Compassion...": Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta On School Hiring Bouncers
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta condemned school hiring bouncers to intimidate parents and students, emphasizing children deserve compassion, not coercion. New Delhi: Amid "alarming" reports of schools employing bouncers to intimidate parents and students, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Friday asserted that children deserve compassion and not coercion. "There have been alarming reports of schools employing bouncers to intimidate parents and students. Education is a right, not a business." "Our children deserve compassion, not coercion. Schools must remain spaces of learning, values and nation-building," she said. The Delhi government has already announced that it will bring an ordinance to implement the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, to control arbitrary fee hikes by private schools. The chief minister's post on X came a day after the Delhi High Court called out Delhi Public School, Dwarka, for using "bouncers" to block the entry of students in its premises over a fee dispute. Noting such a practice had no place in an institution of learning, Justice Sachin Datta said public shaming and intimidation of a student due to financial default not only constitute mental harassment but also undermine the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi HC grants partial relief to students in CLAT-PG answer key dispute
The Delhi High Court on Friday provided partial relief to candidates who had citing discrepancies in a few questions in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. While disposing of three petitions by students seeking rectification of alleged errors in the answer key, the court ruled in favour of the students in two questions and upheld the Consortium of National Law Universities' (NLUs) stance on a third. It directed the Consortium to revise the scoring accordingly and declare the results. The students had also challenged the fee for raising objections to the provisional answer key — ₹1,000 per question — terming it excessive, and sought a direction to the Consortium to reconsider it. The court observed that there should be a 'fine balance' between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions, and said that its observation should be sufficient for the Consortium to take appropriate steps to 'avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations'. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in National Law Universities in the country. CLAT-PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. Multiple pleas were filed in different High Courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong. On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a 'consistent adjudication'.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
HC orders status quo on demolition at Batla House
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has ordered status quo on a proposed demolition by DDA of a property in Batla House after a woman challenged the decision, arguing that she had lived there for 25 years. The woman, Ishrat Jahan, was served a demolition notice by DDA, which claimed illegal construction on the premises and gave her 15 days to comply. A vacation bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has ordered status quo and scheduled the next hearing for July 10. The counsel for DDA said the agency would place on record the survey report and the proposed action based on the demarcation report relating to Batla House, including the petitioner's property. The counsel for Delhi govt assured the court that the demarcation report would be filed in three weeks. The woman has contended that the property "is squarely covered under the PM-UDAY Scheme." DDA has said the property was not under the scheme that grants property ownership to those living in unauthorised colonies. In its May 7 order, the top court said, "Direct DDA to take action of demolition in accordance with law in respect of the unauthorised structures of area of 2 bigha 10 biswa." TNN Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
