New Delhi: A Delhi Court employee has been booked under the prevention of Corruption Act to allegedly bribe at least six persons accused in the case of GST theft for at least six persons for allegedly bribing crores of rupees. The Sessions Judge recently presided over a special CBI court at Rowz Avenue.
While Delhi’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) Government Approval was also sought to prosecute the judge, the request was passed by the government to the Delhi High Court, refused on the basis of insufficient evidence. However, the court stated that the ACB may again contact the court if a material is collected that indicates the participation of the judge.
On 20 May, the Special Judge was transferred from Rowz Avenue to another court.
Show full article
An FIR was filed against the court on 16 May Ahlamad (Record keeper), Recognized as Mukesh, a chartered accountant, Vishal, who allegedly paid a bribe of Rs 40 lakh to secure bail.
ACB received his first complaint against court staff in January A lawyer of Babita Sharma and a lawyer of brother -in -law, a man named Vashishth, who was arrested in the GST case last August and applied for bail in the Sessions Judge’s court.
According to Fir – Viewed by Diprin – Vashish alleged that in October last year, some court officials approached him with a offer to secure bail for Sharma and other accused in exchange for a sufficient amount.
He said, “He called me in a room adjacent to the court no. 608 and demanded Rs 85 lakh for Ms. Sharma and Rs 1 crore for other accused- Raj Singh Saini, Mukesh Saini and Narendra Saini,” he said in his complaint, now it is part of cedar.
He further alleged that Sharma’s bail application was “unjustly prolonged” and eventually “rejected”, on refusal to attach to.
It was further alleged that on two occasions, Raj Singh Saini approached his family and claimed that he got bail by paying sufficient bribe and urged him to do so.
A source familiar with the case said, “The complainant alleged that he was informed that everything would adverse to his powers to persecute Judge Babita Sharma.”
He also alleged that the judge had issued a warning to keep Babita Sharma standing for hours each day of the hearing and would ensure that if the judge’s demands were not met, she would face “irreparable loss”, the source said.
The source said, “The complainant alleged that his family was told that if Babita now pays Rs 1 crore and withdraws her application from the High Court, she will be granted bail and eventually discharged in the next six months,” the source further said.
One more complaint and one investigation
According to Delhi government sources, the complainants, Vashistha, were unable to provide enough evidence to support the complaint.
After this, there was another complaint ACB was presented by Vikesh Kumar Bansal – another accused in the same GST theft Case- which presented an audio recording, allegedly demanded bribe to staff member.
Subsequently, ACB started a formal investigation.
“Bansal’s complaint stated that he was approached by Ahlamad Mukesh from court room number 608 and was asked to go to court. In court, Mukesh allegedly demanded Rs 15-20 lakh per accused for regular bail, even though Bansal was already given on interim bail by the High Court,” Another source said.
According to sources, Bansal also received a phone call from Vishal, a co-accused, who confirmed that he had obtained bail from the same court by paying Rs 40 lakh.
Vishal further claimed that other accused identified as Saini brothers- Rs 1 crore tightened, while transporters paid every 15 lakh rupees, and two persons including Manoj paid every 10 lakh rupees to get bail.
Police said Bansal provided ACB audio recording of these conversations and three tapes were prepared on 24 January in the presence of a punch witness.
Later a report was submitted to the Principal Secretary of the Department of Justice, and Legislative Case on 29 January.
Prosecution approval request
When a request was made for approval to prosecute against the Delhi High Court on 13 February, replied that there was currently insufficient material indicating the participation of the judge. However, the court allowed the investigating agency to proceed with investigation into complaints.
“If, during investigation, any material is collected, which indicates the participation of the said judicial officer in the alleged incident and takes warrant action against him, the investigating agency is on freedom to make a new request to seek appropriate permission to the court,” It is said in response to the approval request.
After this, ACB called Ahlamad For a statement. “We started an inquiry, but Ahlamad Tried to remove it. In fact, he also attempted to influence the witnesses, including those who had presented evidence recorded against them. A source said that a case was registered and a chartered accountant was arrested.
The source said the joint material of two complaints, supported by corporate audio evidence and relevant details around the bail hearing, “Serious misconduct related to demands for bribery by court staff and demands for receipt”.
A third source said that Diprin said that Ahlamad On May 22, he also went for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Delhi court.
(Edited by Geetanjali Das)