27-05-2025
‘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.
