Adding new dimensions to the cash-at-judge’s-door case, Advocate Anupam Gupta, who is also the senior standing counsel for the UT Administration, made certain startling revelations at the General House of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association on Tuesday.  

Gupta, who is known for being vocal on various issues, claimed that there were two judges — one a Supreme Court judge and the other a senior HC judge — present at the Sector 11 residence of the judge where a packet containing Rs 15 lakh in cash was “wrongly” delivered on August 13.

Gupta declared that Sanjeev Bansal, former Haryana additional advocate general and an accused in the case, was in constant touch with the same SC judge’s son between August 14 and 16, the day the FIR in the case was registered. “As many as five calls and an SMS were exchanged between Bansal and the judge’s son,” he said.

“I am convinced that the packet was mistakenly delivered at the HC judge’s residence in Sector 11, but why has the presence of two judges at her residence been concealed,” Gupta questioned.

He alleged that the senior HC judge present there had made a “sustained, conscious and wilful” effort to obstruct and influence the investigation.

“This senior judge even made a call to the SHO concerned. No HC judge ever calls up an SHO directly. After the incident took place, records show, this judge went towards the northern sectors in Chandigarh and made a call to Bansal. He was in a state of total panic,” claimed Gupta.

The advocate also accepted the demand made by an NGO that he should be examined by the CBI to find out his “interest” in the case. “I accept the challenge to be examined by the CBI. Let me state publicly that I will only be too happy to be examined. Place me in your custody, conduct lie-detector and narco-analysis tests. I assure it will be all the worse for you, not for me.”

Gupta informed the General House that Jai Parkash, senior munshi of Sanjeev Bansal, was well known to Ravinder Singh, the Delhi-based businessman and alleged kingpin in the case. “This fact stands corroborated by the 222 calls made between the two in the last six and a half months,” said Gupta.

Following his revelations, the Bar Association has passed a resolution, demanding that the scope of the CBI probe should be expanded.

In another resolution, the Bar criticised the “lopsided reporting” being done in the case by an English newspaper published from Chandigarh.

The association requested the editor of the daily to look into the matter. The speakers ridiculed a report published by the daily on October 19, in which the accusations levelled by an NGO against an advocate for having “vested interest” in the case was published without naming of the NGO and the advocate.

“Had this newspaper mentioned the name of the NGO, readers would have come to know about the credibility of this self-styled NGO,” said Advocate Rajiv Godara.

“We also deprecate the so-called NGO which is acting at the behest of the vested interests in the judicial system and interfering in the proceedings of the High Court Bar,” said Rupinder S Khosla, president of the High Court Bar Association.

Calls made between Bansal and son of SC judge, according to Gupta

August 14:7.24 am SMS from Bansal to judge’s son

August 14:4.56 pm Bansal called judge’s son (127 secs)

August 14:6.39 pm Bansal to judge’s son (33 seconds)

August 15:7.38 pm Judge’s son to Bansal (8 seconds)

August 16:1.59 pm Judge’s son to Bansal (208 seconds)