The CBI was Tuesday issued a notice by a Delhi court on the bail pleas of three accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scandal - RK Chandolia, Siddharth Behura and Shahid Usman Balwa.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Special Judge OP Saini asked the probe agency to respond to the bail applications of Chandolia and Balwa by Feb 24, the next date of hearing.
"The CBI will file its reply against Behura's (bail plea) on Feb 28," said Saini.
The court extended till March 3 the judicial custody of former telecom secretary Behura and former communications minister A Raja`s then personal secretary Chandolia.
The judicial custody was extended so that they could be presented in court along with other two co-accused - Raja and Balwa, managing director of DB Realty.
The former minister's bail application is expected to be moved in the next two-three days. This was revealed while Behura was speaking to his lawyer Parag Chawla.
Chawla requested the court to defreeze Behura's bank account as he had to make payments to hospitals and doctors on behalf of his wife who underwent a surgery for cancer Feb 5.
He said that all decisions relating to the issue of 2G licences to telecom companies, which were under investigation by the CBI, were decided by the department of telecommunications (DoT) well before Behura joined the ministry.
"This can be seen from the fact that I joined only five working days before these decisions were implemented. On Jan 1, 2008, the file relating to the policy for consideration of licences came to me for implementation," said Behura.
"The decisions taken broadly related to pricing of licence, issue of dual technology, cut-off date and processing of applications on first-come-first-served basis. On joining the department, the applicant was only expected to execute and implement the policy decisions already taken by the DoT," he said.
"It is clear from files that there was no meeting of minds between the minister or any other person," he said, while applying for bail.
The other two accused applied for bail on the ground that the investigation concerning them in the present case was mainly based on documentary evidence and there was no likelihood of their tampering with the evidence.