A sessions court judge from Maharashtra has approached the Bombay High Court, seeking pre-arrest bail in a bribery case filed against him.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has accused Dhananjay Nikam, a district and sessions judge in Satara, of demanding a bribe of ₹5 lakh to grant bail in a cheating case.
High Court to Hear Plea on January 15
Justice N.R. Borkar of the Bombay High Court has scheduled a hearing on Nikam’s plea for January 15. The hearing will take place in the judge’s chamber, given the involvement of a judicial officer.
Judge Nikam, represented by advocate Viresh Purwant, claims he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. His petition argues that the First Information Report (FIR) lacks any evidence of direct demand or acceptance of a bribe.
Allegations and ACB Investigation
According to the ACB, the case began with a complaint from a woman whose father, a civilian defence employee, was in judicial custody for allegedly cheating someone by promising a government job. After a lower court denied bail, the woman filed a fresh bail application in the Satara sessions court, which was to be heard by Judge Nikam.
The ACB alleges that two individuals, Kishor Sambhaji Kharat from Mumbai and Anand Mohan Kharat from Satara, demanded ₹5 lakh from the woman on behalf of Judge Nikam in exchange for a favourable bail order. The agency claims their investigation, conducted between December 3 and 9, 2024, verified the bribe demand and confirmed Nikam’s involvement with the Kharats.
Judge Denies Involvement
In his petition, Nikam states that he was either on leave or deputation on the dates mentioned in the allegations, casting doubt on their validity. He also denies any knowledge of meetings between the complainant and the accused or any connection to the bribe demand.
The petition further notes that Judge Nikam did not avoid hearing the bail application, nor did he pass any bail orders during the alleged period.
Case Details
The ACB has charged Judge Nikam, the two Kharats, and an unidentified individual under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case has drawn attention due to the involvement of a judicial officer and the serious nature of the allegations.
good and appreciable by ACB
the judiciary has unlimited powers that’s right
but judiciary misuse of the powers
judiciary use objectionable and defamable words to the plaintiff and defendant in the Court without considering this fact that “मै समय हूँ”