The court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) sent Sanjeev Bansal and Rajiv Gupta, accused in the case pertaining to an attempt made to bribe a High Court judge, to judicial custody for 14 days.

Demanding their police remand, advocate Anupam Gupta reiterated in the court: “Indeed a High Court judge is involved in the case. The identity of the judge already stands established.”

During the arguments, which lasted for more than half an hour, he said the two accused made disclosure statements in which they had said a handset belonging to Bansal was to be recovered from the possession of his Delhi-based friend. Gupta said the handset contained a large number of phone numbers which might offer vital information and leads in the case.

The court witnessed a heated argument between Anupam Gupta and Bansal’s counsel.

Gupta took a dig at Bansal, former Haryana Additional Advocate General, and pointed out that there had been tremendous pressure from both within and outside the legal system on the investigating agency.

“Bansal is an important part of the legal system and he was looking forward to get help from higher quarters from both within and outside. That is why despite custodial interrogation he is opening up in bits and pieces,” said Gupta. Alleging that many high-profile people are involved in this case, he submitted: “The investigating agency is up against a very powerful, intelligent and well-connected nexus that involves higher members of the judiciary.”

Gupta added that a scrutiny of the astronomical bank transactions of Bansal brought to light the fact that his single bank transaction used to be in crores of rupees and that his cash transactions were in lakhs.

Arguing against Bansal’s police remand, senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram, his counsel, claimed that what Bansal and Gupta told the police were not disclosure statements. “If they were, Bansal would have revealed the name of his friend as well who is in possession of the phone,” he said. He also argued that the statements had not been recorded in the presence of independent witnesses.

After the arguments concluded around 4 pm, the magistrate reserved his orders and told the advocates that it would be pronounced at 5 pm.