Five accused get bail in DJB case, continued custody would be ‘pre-trial punishment’, says court

The ACB case concerns alleged manipulation of the tender process for augmentation and upgrade of 10 STPs in Delhi.

A Delhi court on Wednesday granted bail to five accused arrested in a corruption case linked to the Delhi Jal Board’s (DJB) sewage treatment plant tendering process, observing that the allegations against the accused would have to be established at trial and that their continued incarceration would amount to “pre-trial punishment”.

The five, along with Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendra Jain, were arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on August 18.

Special judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts granted bail to former DJB CEO Udit Prakash Rai, alleged middleman Nagendra Yadav, Euroteck director Raja Kumar Kurra, businessman Pankaj Verma and former DJB consultant Ankit Srivastava.

The five, along with Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendra Jain, were arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on August 18, in an FIR registered in May 2024.

The ACB case concerns alleged manipulation of the tender process for augmentation and upgrade of 10 STPs in Delhi. The prosecution alleges that tender conditions were tailored to favour Euroteck and its partner joint ventures, with the estimated project cost rising from ₹1,546.32 crore at the block-estimate stage to ₹1,938 crore at the contract stage.

The court had earlier granted bail to Jain in the case. The court had observed that the ACB had “rushed to arrest him” without sufficient evidence.

The court in its recent order noted the “inordinate and unexplained delay of 27 months” between registration of the FIR and their arrests.

It also observed that the evidence was primarily documentary and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which investigated the money trail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), had already filed its complaint without arresting the accused.

The court said Rai, who was CEO of DJB during the relevant period, had signed three “controversial corrigenda” but noted that the files containing their proposed contents originated from technical officers.

“Without even examining, the executive and chief cngineer, DJB, wishes this court to believe that they initiated the approval file for corrigenda at the behest of Udit Rai. At this stage, that would be a premature conclusion to arrive at,” the court said.

The court also found that the alleged trail of the corrigenda stopped at co-accused Yadav’s phone and did not establish that they were subsequently sent to Rai.

“Therefore, it remains an unanswered question whether Nagendra Yadav passed on the contents of those corrigenda to Udit Rai or to some other subordinate in DJB,” the court noted.

On the alleged ₹61 lakh payment from Yadav to Rai, the court noted that the amount had been repaid with interest before registration of the FIR.

“One wonders why a person seeking kickbacks would do so through banking channels. If that amount was a kickback, why would he repay it, that too with interest?” the judge said.

The court similarly said the allegation concerning another ₹48 lakh received by Rai through his mother-in-law would have to be proved at trial. It added that continued custody was unnecessary and would amount to pre-trial punishment.

The court noted that Yadav was alleged to have acted as the principal conduit between DJB officials and Euroteck and to have received ₹4.44 crore through his proprietorship, besides facilitating payments to Rai and his mother-in-law.

The court acknowledged that his case was materially different from that of Jain and Rai because of the money trail and WhatsApp material recovered from his phone.

“Yadav cannot claim parity with Jain or Rai because of the direct money trail of ₹4.44 crore and WhatsApp records containing draft corrigenda and hawala-related details,” the court said.

However, it stopped short of treating the material as conclusive. The court said whether the transactions were genuine business dealings or part of a quid pro quo would have to be decided at trial.

“Detaining even Yadav at this stage, without that material being proved, would be nothing but pre-trial detention,” the court added.