A Delhi court granted bail to Rohini Jail warder Jagbir, arrested in an extortion case. He was accused of taking ₹1.5 lakh from inmates’ families. The court considered his time in custody and that other co-accused had already received bail.
A Rouse Avenue court has granted bail to a warder of Rohini Jail who was arrested in connection with an alleged extortion racket being run from Delhi’s jails, targeting the kin of inmates. The accused, Jagbir, was arrested in July 2026 for allegedly extorting ₹1.5 lakh from the family members of jail inmates, though no recovery of money was made from his possession. Several other accused persons were also arrested in the case by the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB).
Special Judge (ACB) Vidya Prakash granted bail to Jagbir on Thursday, taking into account the submissions made by his counsel, the evidence on record, and the period he had already spent in custody. “Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of incarceration of applicant/accused, the nature of evidence alleged against him, the role allegedly played by him in the commission of the crime, and the fact that some of the accused persons who stand on similar footing have since already been granted bail, Court is of the view that the bail application in hand also deserves to be allowed,” the Special Judge observed.
“Accordingly, accused namely Jagbir is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount, however, subject to the conditions,” the Special Judge ordered on September 10.
Case Background and Allegations
As per the FIR registered on February 9, 2026, complainant Kunal had alleged that his father and elder brother were being tortured by jail officials for nearly six to seven months. The Investigation Officer (IO), in his reply to the bail application, stated that the complainant had narrated instances of alleged money transactions made into the account of a prosecution witness, who was a neighbour and friend of the accused, in the year 2024.
Defence Arguments
Advocate Sumer Singh Boparai, appearing for the accused, argued that the complainant’s conduct had been mala fide, pointing out that he had changed his narration at regular intervals. Boparai submitted that although the complainant had given minute details of the alleged bribe transactions in his written complaint that led to the FIR, nothing had prevented him from disclosing details of the money transactions from 2024 at the same time.
It was further submitted that the accused was neither posted nor assigned any duty in Barrack No. 3 or the OPD, and that for the preceding one and a half years, he was mostly posted outside the jail.
Counsel for the accused also submitted that Jagbir was arrested on July 16, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody the following day, and that the IO had not sought his police custody remand at any point indicating that no further custodial interrogation was considered necessary, and that his continued detention would not serve any investigative purpose. The defence further argued that the prosecution’s case rested solely on bald assertions that the complainant had paid ₹1.5 lakh to the accused as illegal gratification. It was submitted that since no bribe amount was ever recovered from the accused or at his instance, the allegation of payment remained wholly unsubstantiated in the absence of recovery or corroborative financial evidence.
Prosecution’s Opposition
Opposing the bail plea, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused was posted as a warder in Rohini Jail and was working in tandem with other jail officials, accused persons and private individuals who were allegedly running a crime syndicate by forcing undertrial prisoners (UTPs) and their family members or relatives to pay bribe money.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had accepted such money not only from the complainant but from other prosecution witnesses as well. The Public Prosecutor further submitted that during the investigation, several witnesses, including complainant Kunal, had stated that they were victimised by the accused on different occasions, and that some transactions from 2024 had also been established, showing that the complainant had sent money into the account of a prosecution witness who was a neighbour and friend of the accused. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)