Delhi HC Denies Interim Protection to Court Staffer in Corruption Case

New Delhi, May 27 (PTI): On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court declined to offer interim protection from arrest to a trial court staffer implicated in a corruption case, highlighting the severity of the allegations. Justice Amit Sharma issued a notice regarding the anticipatory bail plea of the accused ahlmad—tasked with maintaining court records—and requested the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to provide its response.

During the proceedings, the senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that the investigation was biased and appealed for interim protection from arrest. However, the court stated that it would address the matter of interim relief on May 29, coinciding with the hearing of the petition seeking to quash the FIR against the staffer. Until then, no immediate directions were issued by the court.

The judge orally noted, "There are 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." In response, the petitioner's counsel mentioned his client's repeated cooperation with the inquiry and the existence of "criss-cross" complaints.

The petitioner also alleged that the ACB filed the bribery FIR to frame a trial court judge as retaliation for a notice issued to its joint commissioner for allegedly intimidating the staff. The prosecutor opposed any relief and mentioned that a response would follow soon.

Earlier, a sessions court dismissed the ahlmad's anticipatory bail plea on May 22, with the public prosecutor arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary to unveil the full conspiracy. The 38-year-old ahlmad served in the Rouse Avenue District Court from September 14, 2023, to March 21, 2025.

The ACB lodged an FIR against the ahlmad on May 16 after allegations surfaced regarding bribe demands for securing bail. In another petition to the high court, the ahlmad sought the FIR's quashing and associated proceedings or, alternatively, a directive to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for fairness.

In response to the ACB's petition for probing the special judge in question for alleged bribery, the high court administration denied the request on February 14, citing a lack of "sufficient material" against the judge. They advised the ACB to keep investigating and approach again with any substantial evidence implicating the judge.

Subsequently, on May 20, the judge was reassigned from the Rouse Avenue Court to another district by the high court through an administrative order.