The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim protection from arrest to an Ahlmad (court staff) of Rouse Avenue Courts, who is facing serious corruption charges. The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations and refused to interfere at this stage.
Justice Amit Sharma heard the matter and observed that the allegations against the court official were very serious, and the case required deeper investigation. The Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), which registered the case, was asked to file its response. The next hearing is scheduled for May 29, when the Ahlmad's plea for quashing of the FIR will also be heard.
“Very serious allegations. Evidence has come on record. A person from our own staff....They (ACB) have given a statement that they want your custodial interrogation,”
— Justice Amit Sharma, Delhi High Court
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate Over 8-Year Delay in Award
The corruption case was registered on May 16 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 61(2) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR followed multiple complaints claiming that the court staff was demanding bribes from accused persons in exchange for bail.
Earlier, on May 22, the trial court had already rejected the Ahlmad's anticipatory bail plea, marking the second setback for the accused in just one week.
In his defense, the Ahlmad alleged that the FIR was false and fabricated, and claimed that the ACB filed it to settle personal scores with a special judge under whom he had previously worked.
“The FIR has been filed by ACB not for justice, but due to internal conflict. I was just working under the judge,”
— Petition filed by the Ahlmad before Delhi High Court
The Ahlmad has also petitioned for the transfer of the investigation from the ACB to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), citing concerns over fairness and impartiality. Alongside, he has requested a departmental inquiry against two ACB officials — a Joint Commissioner and an ACP, accusing them of corruption, blackmailing, and document fabrication.
Read Also:- MP High Court Denies Bail to Lawyer Accused Under UAPA for Alleged Attempt to Revive 'Mughal Order'
Despite the serious nature of his accusations, the High Court did not provide any immediate relief and has instead focused on evaluating the seriousness of the charges through proper investigation.
The matter, titled Mukesh Kumar v. State, continues to develop and will be keenly watched as the judicial system deals with allegations involving its own staff.
“Allegations involving our own court staff must be taken seriously. Law must take its course.”
— Delhi High Court observation
The next hearing on May 29 will be crucial, as both the quashing of FIR and the plea for CBI investigation will be examined.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State
