Panchkula court discharges ex-CBI judge Sudhir Parmar, 4 others in 2023 corruption case

Mumbai: A Special Court in Panchkula discharged former Special CBI and PMLA Judge Sudhir Parmar and four others in a 2023 corruption case registered by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), holding that the prosecution failed to place legally admissible evidence on record to establish a prima facie case.

In an 84-page order pronounced on April 20, Additional Sessions Judge Rajeev Goyal observed that there was “no sufficient ground for proceeding against any of the accused” and ordered their discharge.

Along with Sudhir Parmar and Ajay Singh Parmar, the court also discharged M3M Group promoter Roop Bansal, IREO vice-chairman Lalit Goyal, and Vatika Group representative Anil Bhalla.


Senior Advocate K.S. Pannu appeared for Parmar. Advocates Viraj Gandhi and Adarsh Dubey appeared for accused Anil Bhalla. Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (through video conference), along with advocates Siddharth Bhardwaj and Yavneet Dhakla, appeared for accused Roop Bansal.

The ACB case was primarily based on audio recordings and WhatsApp chats, alleging that Parmar had shown judicial favouritism towards prominent real estate developers. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the source of the recordings or identify the devices used to capture them. It also noted the absence of mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering the electronic evidence inadmissible.

“The prosecution is not even in a position to file a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, as it is not aware of the original device or digital record source from which the WhatsApp chats and audio recordings were prepared or taken. In view of this, the electronic evidence in the shape of WhatsApp chats and audio recordings produced in this case cannot be admitted at the stage of trial. Hence, the evidence on record does not make out a prima facie case against the accused persons, nor does it give rise to grave suspicion, which are the conditions precedent for framing charges in a criminal case,” the court ruled.

One of the key allegations was that a “draft order” recovered from Parmar’s residence was meant to provide relief to IREO vice-chairman Lalit Goyal. Rejecting the claim, the court said the documents were merely personal case notes and a legal rejoinder, not a judicial order. It further pointed out that Parmar had, in fact, dismissed Goyal’s bail plea, contradicting the allegation that he was attempting to favour the developer.

“Nothing can be inferred from the circumstances of the case to suggest that these documents were supplied to accused Sudhir Parmar by accused Lalit Goyal with a view to having his case decided in his favour,” the ASJ said.

The prosecution had also alleged that Parmar’s nephew, Ajay Singh Parmar, was given employment at M3M Group as part of a quid pro quo arrangement. The court dismissed the allegation, noting that Ajay had joined the company in 2020, before Sudhir Parmar was posted as Special CBI Judge in Panchkula in November 2021. It held that his salary increments were in line with standard corporate policy and not linked to any judicial influence.

The court also underlined that the ACB failed to show any financial trail connecting Ajay Parmar to Sudhir Parmar, weakening the prosecution’s claim of bribery.

The case dates back to April 2023, when the ACB registered an FIR alleging that Parmar was extending undue favours to influential developers in cases pending before his court. The allegations led to his suspension by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also prompted a parallel probe by the Enforcement Directorate.

With the discharge order, the Special Court has effectively halted criminal proceedings against all five accused. The ACB has the option of contesting the discharge before the High Court.