Court sends Satyendar Jain, 4 others to judicial custody in DJB graft case for 14-days

A Delhi court sent Satyendar Jain and four others to judicial custody in a DJB corruption case, while an ex-consultant was sent to ACB custody

A Delhi court on Wednesday sent former Delhi water minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain and four others accused in a Delhi Jal Board (DJB)-related corruption case being investigated by the Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to 14 days in judicial custody. Another accused, former DJB contractual consultant Ankit Srivastava, was sent to two days in ACB custody.

Former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain was sent to judicial custody in a corruption case linked to alleged irregularities in DJB tenders (Sonu Mehta/Hindustan Times)

The court of special judge Dig Vinay Singh at Rouse Avenue Courts rejected an application by Jain’s counsel, senior advocate N Hariharan, seeking a declaration that his arrest was illegal.

The court, in a detailed order rejecting the plea of the accused persons, stated, “At this stage of the matter it cannot be claimed that the reasons for arrest mentioned towards the end of the written grounds of arrest documents are insufficient for the investigating officer to arrest the accused persons”.

The court added that even though the accused persons may have joined investigation at earlier instances whenever called by the investigating agency, “but merely on the ground today, it cannot be claimed that the IO could not have arrested the accused when they lastly appeared before him”.

Senior advocate N Hariharan argued that as a minister, Jain was not a subject matter expert and merely relied on technical recommendations and notings made by DJB officers, including engineers, and his decision “cannot be faulted with”.

The other accused sent to judicial custody are Nagendra Yadav, proprietor of AN Enterprises; Raja Kumar Kurra, owner of Euroteck Environment Pvt Ltd; and Pankaj Verma, proprietor of Srijanhar. Former DJB chief executive officer IAS Udit Prakash Rai is also an accused in the case.

Seeking Srivastava’s custodial interrogation, ACB alleged that he played a “vital role” in manipulating tenders for the upgradation of sewage treatment plants (STPs) using Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) technology.

According to the agency’s remand plea, Yadav acted as an intermediary between DJB officials and Euroteck representatives, allegedly in conspiracy with Srivastava and another accused, one KVNS Rao, to ensure that the company secured tenders in exchange for money.

ACB cited WhatsApp conversations between Srivastava and Kurra, alleging that Kurra asked the former not to include “floating media” in the tender as it would make other companies eligible to bid at cheaper rates.

In the remand plea, ACB stated, “Mobile chat conversation revealed that … Kurra was requesting Srivastava not to incorporate floating media into the tender as other competitors would become eligible by offering cheaper rates and his company will not stand in the tender.”

“Thereafter, Ankit Srivastava shared the corrigendum No. 1 issued by DJB wherein IFAS technology with fixed media was finalised as the sole technology for the said STP tender,” the agency said.

ACB alleged that Kurra subsequently shared screenshots of his conversations with Srivastava with Yadav.

The agency told the court that Srivastava’s custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the source of the corrigendum and determine the involvement of other DJB officials. Additional public prosecutor Manish Rawat also alleged that several “hawala transactions” had been traced to the accounts of the accused and that their financial trail needed to be established.

Hariharan, appearing for Jain, argued that the FIR was registered more than two years ago and that Jain had cooperated with the investigation. He said Jain’s name did not figure in the FIR and that there was no evidence of his direct involvement in manipulating the tenders.

“The arrest is illegal,” Hariharan argued.

The case was registered on May 11, 2024, following a complaint by the Delhi government’s Directorate of Vigilance alleging “large-scale irregularities” and “criminal conspiracy” in the tendering process for augmentation and upgradation of DJB STPs.

ACB officials aware of the case details said that the investigation so far has found that three companies were awarded tenders initially estimated at ₹1,546 crore, with the value subsequently increasing to ₹1,943 crore. The agency has alleged that tenders for the upgradation of 10 STPs in areas including Keshopur, Najafgarh, Pappan Kalan, Nilothi, Narela, Rohini and Kondli were never advertised.

According to the ACB, the tender contained restrictive technical specifications favouring Euroteck, thereby limiting competition and giving the company an undue advantage.

The ACB case is also the predicate offence for a money-laundering investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The agency registered an ECIR in January 2025 based on the ACB FIR. On December 8, 2025, ED filed a prosecution complaint against 14 persons, including Jain, Rai, former DJB member Ajay Gupta and former chief engineer Satish Vashishth, alleging money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

ED alleged that ₹6.73 crore was paid as illegal commissions through banking channels and cash, with bogus invoices and advances allegedly used to disguise some payments. It said Euroteck allegedly earned ₹9.96 crore in undue profits and that some funds were routed through hawala channels. It alleged that Jain and others were involved in the generation, acquisition, concealment, possession and use of proceeds of crime totalling around ₹17.70 crore.

ACB joint commissioner Vikramjit Singh told HT on Wednesday that the investigation had traced the flow of alleged bribes and commissions through intermediaries including AN Enterprises and Srijanhar. “[Former] DJB CEO Rai had individually received a bribe amount of ₹1.5 crore in his and his relatives’ accounts.”

ED has also provisionally attached movable and immovable properties worth ₹15.36 crore belonging to the accused. None of the accused had been arrested by the ED when it filed its prosecution complaint, which is pending cognisance before the same court.

With inputs from Jignasa Sinha