New Delhi, May 26 (PTI) An audio clip purportedly showing a senior Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) officer acknowledging attempts to frame a special judge here in a corruption case has been submitted before the Delhi High Court, a lawyer claimed on Monday.
Ayush Jain, the lawyer representing a court staff member in the matter, said that the high court is likely to take up the matter on Tuesday.
Jain while appearing for ahlmad (court staff for maintaining records) Mukesh Kumar, recently told a Delhi court that the ACB lodged an FIR regarding alleged bribery to frame the judge to "settle score with him" after he issued notice to its joint commissioner asking why a contempt reference be not made to the Delhi High Court for allegedly threatening the staff.
"In the audio clip, an ACP of the Anti-Corruption Branch is heard stating that the 'practical sense' of the framing of the judge was that there was a series of orders questioning the investigations being carried out by the ACB. The ACP also clarifies in the recording that the orders of the judge were adverse and the judge had directed for replacing the investigating officer," the lawyer claimed while talking to PTI.
He added that the judge was also heard in the audio purportedly saying that he had nothing personal against the officers of ACB and that they could have challenged the orders before the superior courts, "instead of trying to implicate him by lifting people from hospitals and forcing them to write statements against the court".
"The officer of Anti-Corruption Branch made a veiled threat that if orders continue to be passed against the officers of the Branch, then there will be consequences. The ACP is heard clarifying that he is revealing those facts to the judge on 'humanitarian ground'," the lawyer said.
The court staff member has filed a petition before the HC seeking an independent investigation in the matter.
On February 14, the high court had turned down ACB's request to initiate a probe against the special judge for alleged bribery, saying the probe agency did not have "sufficient material" against the judge.
However, the high court asked the ACB to continue its investigation and suggested that it approach them again if any material showing the special judge's involvement is found.
On May 16, the ACB registered an FIR against the court ahlmad. Following which, the special judge on May 20 was transferred from Rouse Avenue Court to another district by the high court through an administrative order.
The ahlmad, 38, was posted in the court of the special judge in question between September 14, 2023 and March 21, 2025.
A Delhi court on May 22 dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Kumar after the public prosecutor claimed that the ahlmad's custodial interrogation was required to "unearth the entire conspiracy".
The judge, however, directed the ACB to follow the law if it was to make the arrest.
In his bail application, Kumar claimed, "The ACB is the main litigant in most cases pending disposal before the said court. During his tenure in the said court, the officers of ACB, GNCTD, threatened him with dire consequences owing to which the applicant/accused also made a request on January 25, 2025 for his transfer from the said court." "On May 16, 2025, the presiding officer passed an order issuing notice to the joint commissioner of ACB to show cause as to why a contempt reference be not made to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated that the ACB, GNCTD, in order to settle score with the presiding officer of the said court filed a false and fabricated FIR against the applicant/accused as well as tried to frame the presiding officer," the application further claimed.
In his petition before the high court, the ahlmad sought quashing of the FIR as well as all consequent proceedings.
In the alternative, he has prayed for a direction from the high court to transfer of the case to CBI for a fair and proper investigation.
The petitioner's counsel alleged that FIR was registered after an order was passed by the trial court judge on May 15 issuing show cause against the joint commissioner of ACB as to why reference for contempt of court not to be made to the high court.
While seeking protection from "victimization" by officers of ACB under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, he also sought a departmental enquiry against two officers of the ACB for alleged "underhand dealings, corruption, blackmailing, criminal intimidation, abuse of office, misuse of state machinery, forgery, and fabrication of documents, abduction intimidation of witnesses, and destruction of official record". PTI UK KVK KVK
/newsdrum-in/media/member_avatars/9Rj3p38eDEeibqzKtTLR.jpg )
Follow Us/newsdrum-in/media/agency_attachments/2025/01/29/2025-01-29t072616888z-nd_logo_white-200-niraj-sharma.jpg){kind=logo}
