Delhi High Court Transfers Judge Following ACB Bribery Allegations:

Suspense crime, Digital Desk : The Delhi High Court has transferred a special judge since the ACB expressed concerns regarding his dealings in bribery bailouts. This decision comes after additional updates were made concerning an investigation linked to a misconduct by a judicial official.

The ACB in January made claims of acquiring materials that prove a judge alongside a court clerk were attempting to extort funds for bail in multiple cases. However, a month later the high court explained that the evidence which was presented did not adequately substantiate the claims made against the judge.

High Court Keeps Investigation Open, But Finds Lack of Evidence

In a letter to the ACB, the registrar of the case under the vigilance division noted that the materials at hand did not warrant any actions to be taken against the judge. The registrar is clear, the agency investigating may proceed with the inquiry and if they provide enough evidence that suggests the material justifies the judge’s conviction around the spotlight for the accusations made, it may come under consideration.

ACB claimed that submissions made were sufficient along with evidence to close the investigation. The registrar merely indicates that should new evidence come forward, submissions may be filed. It was on the 16th of May that the case under ACB was open against the clerck and references under the high court were included. Following this, on the 20th of May the special judge was transferred.

Bribbery Deals Involving Large Sums Of Money For Bail

The initial report stems from the allegations made by relatives of the accused who claimed that they were being extorted in the form of bribes from ₹15-20 lakhs—and—some claiming up to ₹1 crore—for the bail service. These allegations provided sufficient reasoning to start an investigation with the ACB and undertake steps for recenet developments with them.

The issue still remains active as the ACB tries to obtain additional information to strengthen their case. The High Court, for now, might not be able to determine if new evidence will sufficiently validate proceeding with the initial assertions but has stated primary logic to provide additional evidentiary support for other claims.