At Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi, the courtroom fell silent on December 24, 2025, as Special Judge (PC Act) Shailender Malik delivered a detailed judgment convicting three accused in a CBI trap case involving demands for illegal gratification from a homeowner constructing his house in Jain Nagar. The matter, which began with what seemed like a routine site visit, turned into a criminal conspiracy inquiry that played out across phone calls, field surveillance, and a final trap operation.
Background
According to the judgment and evidence cited, the complainant was approached during house construction and allegedly threatened with obstruction and demolition unless a bribe was paid. The prosecution established that A-1 Surender Kumar projected himself as an MCD official, A-2 joined negotiations, and A-3-an actual Junior Engineer-operated from behind the scenes. Phone records, trap evidence, and witness testimonies later connected the dots.
“The accused persons had already hatched the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification,” the court noted while recounting how the chain of events unfolded.
Court’s Observations
The court scrutinised the audio recordings, trap proceedings, testimony from independent witnesses, and technical reports. The judgment emphasised that even if a public servant does not personally take money, demand and acceptance through intermediaries remains punishable.
“There is sufficient evidence showing that A-1 and A-2 demanded the bribe amount… and A-1 was found red handed accepting the bribe amount.”
Judge Malik also addressed the defence arguments about digital evidence, observing that objections regarding procedures, including hash values and Section 65B certification, did not nullify the established chain of proof for the purpose of this case.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court on Death Reference: CCTV Lapses, Evidence Gaps Lead to Modified Verdict
Final Decision / Order
Summarising the chain of facts, the court concluded that all three acted in concert - A-1 accepted the money, A-2 facilitated, and A-3, as JE, formed the official centre of influence behind the demand.
“This court concludes that charge for offence Under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended) read with Section 120B IPC stands proved… all three accused persons are held guilty.” - Special Judge Shailender Malik, 24.12.2025
The judgment ends at conviction; sentence is to follow in accordance with law. No further directions beyond conviction were recorded at this stage.
Case Title: CBI vs Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Case Number: CBI Case No. 80/2024
FIR Number: RC-DAI-2024-A-0009 (CBI/ACB Delhi)
Judgment Pronounced: 24.12.2025
