New Delhi: What began as a routine GST fraud probe and arrest in August last year has exploded into a high-stakes standoff between Delhi’s judiciary and its Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), with allegations of bail-for-bribe deals, retaliation against a judge, and fabrication of evidence.
At the center is Mukesh Kumar, an ahlmad (record keeper) formerly posted at a Special Court at Rouse Avenue at court room number 608, who now faces serious corruption charges — and who, in turn, has accused ACB officers of orchestrating a vendetta campaign to target a presiding judge critical of their investigations.
This development comes just days after a separate controversy rocked the national capital involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. On 14 March a fire broke out at his Lutyens’ Delhi residence, where a huge stash of burnt cash was reportedly discovered in a storeroom near the servants’ quarters. After a Supreme court appointed committee submitted its report in the matter, the court withdrew all judicial work from Justice Varma, later transferring him to the Allahabad High Court and directing that no judicial assignments be given to him.
In the present case, Mukesh Kumar, who has now ‘absconding’ as per ACB officials, is accused of demanding and receiving large sums on behalf of the court in exchange for bail to multiple accused in a Rs 54 crore GST refund scam.
Earlier, Kumar wrote to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging a deep-rooted conspiracy by senior ACB officers to coerce court staff, manipulate case files, and target a presiding judge through what he describes as a “manufactured FIR.”
On 16 May, the ACB registered FIR No. 33/2025 under Sections 7, 13, and 8(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 308(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR alleged that Mukesh Kumar, acting from within the Special Court, demanded bribes from multiple accused to facilitate bail in FIR No. 05/2023, a corruption case involving over 500 fake companies and Rs 700 crore in fraudulent invoices.
The primary complainants on the basis of which the FIR was lodged are Prasoon Vashishtha, an advocate and brother-in-law of accused GST officer Babita Sharma, and Vikesh Bansal, another accused in the case who were arrested in August last year.
According to ACB sources, Vashishtha’s 30 December 2024 complaint—addressed to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court—alleged that bail for Sharma was delayed and ultimately dismissed after he refused to pay a bribe of Rs 1 crore to judicial officers.
Bansal, in a 20 January 2025 complaint, submitted three audio recordings allegedly capturing Mukesh Kumar soliciting bribes.
On 29 January, the matter was referred to the GNCTD Law Department and then to the Registrar (Vigilance), Delhi High Court, which gave ACB liberty to investigate on 13 February 2025.
According to ACB, Mukesh Kumar failed to cooperate, refused to submit his mobile phone, and went into hiding after the FIR was filed. On 22 May, a Delhi court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea but directed that BNSS safeguards for arrest be followed.
The ACB has arrested co-accused Vishal Kumar, a chartered accountant, who allegedly admitted in his disclosure, among other things, that he paid Rs 40 lakh to Mukesh Kumar for interim bail, extensions, and regular bail.
He also allegedly acted as an intermediary for others, collecting Rs 85 lakh from Raj Singh Saini and his brothers, Rs 15 lakh from transporter Lalit Kumar, and additional amounts from accused Manoj Kumar and Vikesh Bansal.
The agency claims that the pattern shows a coordinated scheme of judicial manipulation in exchange for large cash payments. The FIR against Kumar, ACB insists, rests not merely on complaints but on a direct confession from a co-accused and corroborating audio evidence.
On 21 May 2025, Mukesh Kumar filed a detailed complaint before the CBI, seeking FIRs against top officials of the ACB.
In his complaint, he accused the officials of attempting to alter judicial records to protect a builder, offering him money to “unofficially” replace court documents, threatening him with arrest and custodial violence for refusing, pressuring him to gather “dirt” on the presiding judge, and using him as a “tool” to retaliate after the judge passed 17 adverse orders flagging ACB lapses, such as delayed charge-sheets and botched investigations.
Kumar, as a part of his court submission, has also submitted his 25 January transfer request, which detailed these alleged pressures — and which he claims was later leaked to ACB, prompting threats that he would be jailed within a month. He also alleged that ACB officers visited the judge’s chamber after a 16 May contempt show-cause notice was issued against ACB officials.
In his complaint he had further alleged that hours later, the FIR against Kumar was filed. That same evening, ACB officers allegedly visited Kumar’s home, roughed up family members, seized phones, and demanded he implicate the judge in which he was the record keeper.
An audio clip allegedly capturing ACB officer Jarnail Singh stating that the “practical sense” behind targeting the judge was his repeated adverse judicial orders has been submitted to the court as part of Kumar’s defence.
This was confirmed by Ayush Jain, one of four lawyers representing Kumar pro bono.
Jain also shared with The Sunday Guardian copies of 17 judicial orders passed by the judge in question between July and October 2024 that had criticised ACB investigations; these orders, Jain said, are part of the official court record.
“This FIR against Kumar is a case of abuse of process of law. In fact, the judge has in the past issued a show-cause for contempt against a senior ACB officer in a separate case. Many such adverse orders have been passed by the concerned judge against ACB and that is why he is now being targeted,” Jain told The Sunday Guardian.
When asked whether Mukesh Kumar was absconding, Jain declined to comment.
Kumar’s allegations, while extensive and detailed, remain under judicial review and have not been independently verified.
Kumar further claims that after the FIR, ACB illegally detained Vikesh Bansal to force him to change his statement — an application regarding this was allegedly filed before the Rouse Avenue District Judge. He said an earlier internal inquiry (by officer Krishan Kumar) had already closed the case, finding that complainants’ signatures were obtained under duress. That inquiry, he claims, was disregarded.
He also alleged an ACP with the ACB personally told him the retaliation was due to the judge’s conduct and that his statement was being weaponized to draw the judge into the case. He claimed ACB warned him that if the presiding officer did not reverse his contempt notice, the FIR would proceed.
Kumar has further claimed that CCTV footage from the Rouse Avenue court complex could corroborate his version of events on 16 May.
Kumar is seeking protection under Section 183 of BNSS to record a court statement and has expressed fear that the current investigation is being led by officers he previously accused of corruption.
In response to five queries by The Sunday Guardian, the ACB, through a senior DCP level officer, issued this point-wise statement:
1. Why was FIR No. 33/2025 against Mukesh Kumar registered on 16 May 2025 — just hours after the Special Court issued a contempt notice to senior ACB officials?
The FIR was unrelated to the contempt notice. The investigation was based on independent complaints and approved by the Delhi High Court. The contempt notice appears to have been issued after the court informally learned of impending action, potentially to create institutional pressure.
2. Did the ACB conduct any internal inquiry or verification before registering the FIR?
Yes. The contents of both complaints and audio recordings were verified. The Law Department and Delhi High Court were informed, and permission to investigate was granted. The accused refused to cooperate.
3. How does ACB respond to Mukesh Kumar’s transfer request, which allegedly cited pressure from ACB officers?
The ACB was neither notified of nor privy to this transfer request and cannot comment on its content.
4. Does the audio recording contain an explicit demand for a bribe?
Yes. According to ACB, the recording clearly captures a demand for bribes and also includes threats.
5. Did the agency re-approach the Delhi High Court before FIR registration in May?
No additional approval was required after the High Court’s February clearance. The FIR was based solely on evidence and the accused’s non-cooperation.
Senior ACB officials, speaking off the record, said the timing of the contempt notice issued by the judge in which Mukesh Kumar was the record keeper raised questions since it was issued after the agency had reportedly finalized its evidentiary review and was close to arresting Kumar.
According to them, the notice is being viewed internally as a tactical response intended to exert pressure on the agency ahead of imminent action.
ACB officials maintained that the agency had followed all statutory procedures and expressed confidence that its actions would withstand judicial scrutiny. The Special Judge at the center of the controversy was subsequently transferred from Rouse Avenue to Rohini court.
With serious accusations on both sides — including potential misuse of investigative powers and abuse of court processes — the matter is now under review by the Delhi High Court. A status report is expected by 29 May.