The Allahabad High Court, through Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Brahma Prakash Singh, a PMLA accused, who sought transfer of his money laundering trial from the Special Court in Lucknow. The petitioner had alleged that the Presiding Officer demanded a bribe of ₹1 crore for acquittal and release of confiscated assets.
"The transfer application has been filed on false and imaginary allegations so as to avoid facing trial," the High Court held, affirming the Sessions Court's order rejecting the plea.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Denies Bail in Pro-Pakistan Facebook Post Case, Slams Growing Anti-National Acts
Background of the Case
Brahma Prakash Singh, formerly the Managing Director of LACFEDD, was convicted in 2015 under IPC Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following this, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated money laundering proceedings, filing Complaint Case No. 30/2018 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
On December 23, 2024, Singh sought transfer of the case under Section 448 of the BNSS, alleging that the Presiding Judge demanded a ₹1 crore bribe on September 17, 2024, post his Section 313 CrPC statement. Singh claimed that the bribe was asked in private, while the judge was alone on the dais.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Without Notice to Legal Heirs
The Sessions Court, in its April 11, 2025 order, noted:
“The allegations are vague, baseless, and unsupported by any evidence. No reasonable person would believe that such a demand was made in open court during session hours.”
The Presiding Officer categorically denied the allegations, stating that the courtroom always has court staff and the public prosecutor present during proceedings. He accused the petitioner and his counsel of using the allegation to delay the trial, even resorting to raising loud voices in court to disrupt proceedings.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Allows Termination of 27-Week Pregnancy of Minor Rape Survivor
Justice Vidyarthi observed that the complaint was lodged three months after the alleged incident, and only after the trial court passed multiple orders against the petitioner, including rejection of applications under Section 311 CrPC and Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA.
“The delay in lodging the complaint and the lack of any immediate protest indicates that the application was a tactic to shift the trial from a court that ruled unfavorably,” the Court remarked.
Read also:- Supreme Court Implemented SC/ST Reservation in Staff Recruitment for the First Time Under CJI Gavai
Allegation Against High Court Judge
Singh even leveled serious allegations against a coordinate Bench of the High Court, accusing Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan of deliberately not passing an interim order in his Section 482 CrPC plea. The Court termed this as:
“False, scandalous and contemptuous.”
It reiterated the Supreme Court’s position in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak that judicial records are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned through affidavits or statements at the Bar.
Read also:- Supreme Court to Decide Whether SREI Equipment Finance Limited is Bound by RBI Circulars, but Why?
Concluding that Singh's application was aimed at stalling the trial and undermining the judicial process, the High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's findings and dismissed the writ petition on May 26, 2025.
"I find myself in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge," the bench stated, emphasizing that no illegality was committed in rejecting the transfer application.
Case title - Brahma Prakash Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner: Raj Vikram Singh, Sanjay Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent: AGA-I Anurag Verma, Advocate Kuldeep Srivastava (for ED) and Advocate Shishir Jain (for HC)
