The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to shield Mukesh Kumar, an ahlmad (record keeper) at Rouse Avenue Court, from arrest as bribery allegations swirled around him. The accusations are grave—alleging that Kumar solicited and accepted bribes from accused individuals in exchange for bail.
With its gaze stern and unwavering, the Court remarked: “Very, very serious allegations. The evidence has come on record. A person from our own staff… this is something very serious,” as Justice Amit Sharma declined interim protection sought by Kumar’s counsel.
The plea will be taken up again on May 29, coinciding with a separate petition filed by Kumar to quash the FIR lodged against him.
Kumar, once a backstage figure in the judicial machine, now finds himself at its center. His legal team, led by Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Maninder Singh, argued that the ACB officer now probing him was someone Kumar had previously accused—casting doubt on the fairness of the process. “What fairness can I expect?” Mathur asked the Court.
But the prosecution countered firmly. “There is a handwritten slip from him detailing how the whole thing was to unfold,” responded Additional Standing Counsel Sanjay Bhandari, alleging direct involvement by Kumar in orchestrating bail-for-bribe deals.
Kumar, according to his counsel, has already participated in multiple rounds of questioning—seven times since February, to be precise. The case, as they put it, is riddled with “criss-cross complaints.”
The Anti-Corruption Branch formally registered a case on May 16 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The roots of this saga go deeper, though. Back in January, the ACB had sought the Delhi government’s nod to investigate not just Kumar, but also a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court. The High Court, while allowing the investigation to proceed against Kumar, denied sanction against the judge, stating there wasn’t enough material to justify such a move.
That didn’t stop the allegations from expanding. A transcript submitted by Kumar allegedly records a conversation between the Special Judge and an ACB officer, in which the judge expresses concern over being framed. The officer allegedly hints that the judge’s “adverse orders” had not been well received.
“This is an FIR against the applicant, and they are traveling beyond it,” Bhandari insisted, responding to the inclusion of the transcript in the defense’s submissions.
Kumar is being represented by Justum Legal, with Advocate Ayush Jain leading the charge. But for now, the Court isn’t budging. The wheels of justice keep turning—and in this case, they’re kicking up dust in every direction.