Former CBI judge discharged in graft case

Weather ePaper Today’s Paper Journalism of Courage Home ePaper Politics Explained Opinion India Business Premium Cities UPSC Entertainment Sports World Lifestyle Tech Subscribe Sign In TrendingUPSC OfferIPL 2026US NewsPuzzles & GamesLegal NewsFresh TakeHealthResearch🎙️ Podcast Advertisement function checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript() { if (window.jQuery) { // jQuery is loaded, include your script jQuery(document).ready(function($) { // Your existing script for checking window width if (window.innerWidth) var page_w = window.innerWidth; else if (document.all) var page_w = document.body.clientWidth; if (page_w > 1024) { $(".add-left, .add-right").show(); } else { $(".add-left, .add-right").hide(); } }); } else { // jQuery is not loaded, check again after 0.2 seconds setTimeout(checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript, 200); } } // Initial call to the function checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript(); NewsLegalFormer CBI judge discharged in graft case Former CBI judge discharged in graft case The allegations included bribery, obtaining undue advantage, criminal misconduct by a public servant, and criminal conspiracy. By: Express News Service3 min readPanchkulaApr 21, 2026 07:49 AM IST Counsel representing the former CBI judge and other accused termed the allegations “baseless, contradictory and legally untenable” while seeking discharge in the case. (File Photo) Make us preferred source on Google Whatsapp twitter Facebook Reddit PRINT A Special CBI Court in Panchkula on Monday discharged five accused, including former CBI judge Sudhir Parmar, in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Rajeev Goyal granted discharge to Parmar, his nephew Ajay Parmar, and three representatives of real estate firms — Roop Bansal, Anil Bhalla, and Lalit Goyal. A detailed order is awaited. Following the filing of the charge-sheet, the accused had moved discharge applications before the court. Their counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case. After hearing the submissions, the court allowed the discharge pleas. The case dates back to 2023, when an FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Panchkula, under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations included bribery, obtaining undue advantage, criminal misconduct by a public servant, and criminal conspiracy. According to the FIR, Parmar — then serving as Special Judge for CBI and Enforcement Directorate cases in Panchkula — was accused of showing favouritism towards certain real estate developers, including Lalit Goyal of the IREO group and Roop Bansal of M3M India, in matters pending before higher courts. Parmar was then booked by the ACB on April 17, 2023, and was subsequently placed under suspension by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. After nearly 18 months of investigation, the ACB sought sanction from the state government in January 2025 to prosecute Parmar. The charge-sheet was later forwarded to the High Court for its recommendation. Counsel representing the former CBI judge and other accused termed the allegations “baseless, contradictory and legally untenable” while seeking discharge in the case. Appearing for the accused, advocates S P S Parmar and Yavneet Dhakla argued that the allegation that the judge demanded Rs 5–7 crore to favour M3M promoters in an Enforcement Directorate case was not supported by the prosecution’s own material. They pointed out that the ACB itself admitted that the alleged WhatsApp chats indicating demand or acceptance of bribes could not be traced. The defence further contended that claims of misuse of office by the former judge to secure employment and benefits for his nephew Ajay Parmar in M3M were factually incorrect. They highlighted that Ajay joined M3M in December 2020, while Sudhir Parmar was posted as Special CBI Judge in Panchkula only in November 2021, making the allegation implausible. It was also argued that no case involving M3M or its promoters was ever heard or decided by the judge, negating any motive for alleged bribery. The defence maintained that interaction between Parmar and Roop Bansal was minimal and limited to a single meeting. Raising legal objections, the counsel submitted that the FIR was registered without mandatory prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in violation of protections available to judicial officers. They also questioned the admissibility of alleged electronic evidence, citing absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and its origin from an anonymous source. The defence alleged that the investigation suffered from “confirmation bias” and procedural lapses, vitiating the entire case.