A judge, his nephew, three real estate developers, accused in a graft case were let off by a CBI special court in Haryana on April 20, because the court said that evidence against the judge — who was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 5-7 crore, and accepting bribe of Rs 5 crore from the real estate developers — was based on WhatsApp chats and audio recordings. According to the CBI court, these chats and recordings are unreliable and inadmissible in law.The detailed order on discharge of Judge Sudhir Parmar, his nephew Ajay, and real estate developers, IREO’s Vice chairman Lalit Goyal, M3M owner Roop Bansal and Vatika’s owner Anil Bhalla, was issued today.When Judge Sudhir Parmar was booked, he was a CBI/ED Special Judge, Haryana.The State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB), Haryana, then known as ACB, had accused Judge Sudhir Parmar of demanding a bribe of Rs 5-7 crore to help the owners of M3M in an ED case. It also claimed that the judge was given Rs 5 crore by IREO’s Lalit Goyal. Based on audio recordings, it accused him of being in regular contact with the owner of M3M Group, Roop Bansal, who at the time was also apprehensive about being arrayed as an accused by ED. It further claimed to have traced Parmar’s purchase of residential and commercial plots in the names of his relatives to the bribes paid by the owners of IREO and M3M.ChatsRegarding the WhatsApp chats involving the demand and acceptance of bribes, it turned out that the same chats couldn’t be found on the phones of Judge Sudhir Parmar and his nephew, Ajay Parmar. “It also could not be known by the investigating agency as to which was the mobile phone with which accused Sudhir Parmar had allegedly entered into a chat,” observed CBI judge Rajeev Goyal.He added that “the alleged chats on the record, on the basis of which, accused Sudhir Parmar is being accused of demanding and accepting a huge amount of bribe, are totally worthless”.ACB sought to justify by saying that either the data had been deleted from the mobile phones by the accused persons or it had been deleted automatically due to a long lapse of time.“However, even the deleted data from the mobile phones of the accused has been retrieved and, therefore, the justification given by ACB is without any basis,” said the CBI judge.Audio recordingsOut of 12 recordings, only four matched the voices of Sudhir Parmar, former judge VP Gupta, and M3M owner Roop Bansal.The CBI judge observed that the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, dated February 28, 2024, revealed that the recordings were not made on a single day but were stored in an Olympus DVR on January 26, 2023, and hence were not original recordings but copies.He added that “in the absence of clear evidence as to who actually prepared the recordings, what is the original source thereof, and which was the device used to record the conversations, the entire case of the prosecution concerning the recorded conversations is rendered unworthy of acceptance”.The demand and acceptance of bribe from IREO/M3M by Sudhir Parmar couldn’t be proved as it was based on audio recordings.On a recording between Sudhir Parmar and former judge VP Gupta, where ACB alleged that they were making a plan to extort money from retired IAS TC Gupta, the CBI judge said that if that was so, then why VP Gupta was not arrayed as an accused, and commented that even if conversation was believed it could only be said that Sudhir Parmar was being a “loud mouth and boastful”.During the course of the arguments, the CBI court asked the Deputy Director of Prosecution why the original source of the audio recordings had not been disclosed. He produced a memo dated March 17, addressed to the Director General, SV&ACB, directing the investigating officer for information on the original source of recordings and chats.However, at the resumed hearing on March 24, nothing was shown to the satisfaction of the court, meaning that the “prosecution itself admits that it has no information about the original source of the alleged WhatsApp chats and audio recordings”, said the CBI judge.As the audio recordings failed as evidence, the allegation that Sudhir Parmar’s family purchased a residential plot from Vatika’s owner, Anil Bhalla, at a rate below the market rate, and paying the rest through the bribe money couldn’t be proved.‘No favourable order’ On an allegation of favouring IREO’s Lalit Goyal in the ED case trial, the CBI court said that the prosecution “miserably failed to pinpoint” if judge Sudhir Parmar passed any favourable order. He had, in fact, dismissed the bail application of Lalit Goyal. He had only allowed his application for traveling abroad and had also disposed of his application seeking direction to ED not to share any information in relation to the investigation with any media house.“…these were judicial orders, and none was challenged by ED or anyone else before the Hon’ble High Court,” said the CBI judge in the discharge order.“Further, it is not digestible that only for dealing with accused Lalit Goyal in the court in a respectful manner and not to harass him by issuing frequent warrants/notices etc., accused Sudhir Parmar would have demanded an amount as huge as Rs 5 crore and accused Lalit Goyal would have readily given him the said amount,” concluded the CBI judge.On allegations of Sudhir Parmar pressing ED officials, Saket Kumar, Manoj Mishra, and Jattvibeil, on the request of M3M’s owner, Roop Bansal, not to attach properties related to joint collaboration agreements between M3M and IREO, the CBI judge questioned why ED officials were never joined in investigations.