E-Paper
‘Rushed to arrest him' without enough proof: Court on granting Satyendar Jain bail in corruption case
AAP leader Satyendar Jain was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh and two sureties of the like amount.
Prefer HTon Google
A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in a corruption case dating back to his tenure as Delhi’s water minister, observing that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) “rushed in to arrest him” without gathering sufficient evidence.
In his order, special judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Court underlined that a few decisions taken by Jain during his tenure as a minister “do raise eyebrows” and that “he may not be innocent”, but the material gathered by ACB so far was “not enough”. The AAP leader was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh and two sureties of the like amount.
“The investigating agency ought to have first conducted a thorough investigation and gathered more evidence before rushing to arrest him,” the order read.
The court will decide the plea of the five other accused, including IAS officer and former Delhi Jal Board (DJB) chief executive officer Udit Rai, on September 5.
Jain was arrested on August 18 along with five others in a DJB-related corruption case. Five accused, including Jain, were sent to 14 days of judicial custody, while former DJB contractual consultant Ankit Shrivastava was remanded to two days of ACB custody.
The ACB registered the case 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 upgrade of DJB’s sewage treatment plants (STPs).
Court questions ‘unexplained delay’ in proceedings
The court’s order was also critical of the “unexplained delay” of 27 months between the registration of the FIR and Jain’s arrest. “The prosecution has failed to identify any new or suddenly intervening circumstance that warranted his arrest after such a prolonged gap. Not much seems to have been achieved in the investigation during this long period besides collecting replies and documents,” the order read.
The ACB, last week, opposed Jain’s bail plea, alleging that he played a “vital role in manipulating” DJB STP tenders to favour a private company.
In its 13-page written response, additional public prosecutor Manish Rawat alleged that Jain “connived” with senior DJB officials, including former CEO and co-accused Udit Prakash Rai, to manipulate technical recommendations, the capacity of an STP project and its cost estimates, eventually tailoring tender conditions to favour Euroteck Environmental Pvt Ltd.
Also Read: ACB opposes AAP leader’s bail, says he manipulated DJB STP tenders to favour firm
The bail order read, “...the allegations are primarily against the other co-accused persons...even if the statements on record and the materials gathered are taken into account, the applicant’s complicity will have to be established at trial, and, if convicted, the applicant will be sentenced”.
The court held that prima facie, none of the WhatsApp chats regarding STP tenders had links to Jain, and there was no other phone call record or SMS that might presently connect him to the kickbacks and hawala transactions with the other co-accused.
The judge said, “When an investigating agency has conducted its investigation for years without arresting an accused, and the accused has joined the investigation process, a sudden arrest at the tail end of the investigation, without strong reasons and without a change in circumstances, tends to invite criticism that it is arbitrary”.
The court held that Jain was not a flight risk and there was no possibility of him influencing any witness. “Continued detention in judicial custody cannot be justified on the generic plea that a conspiracy is yet to be unearthed,” the court said.
Allegations against Satyendar Jain
The ACB, in its case, has alleged that the manipulation began at a meeting on August 31, 2021, attended by Jain, senior DJB officials and representatives of Euroteck. “During the meeting, it was decided that a pilot run of Euroteck’s proposed technology would be conducted at the Coronation STP to test its efficiency. It was also decided that both suspended media and fixed media technologies would be permitted in the tender,” the ACB stated.
It added, “Neither the pilot run was conducted nor were both technologies ultimately allowed in the tender. Instead, the tender process subsequently moved towards permitting only IFAS technology with fixed media, which allegedly suited Euroteck”.
The agency further alleged that another important decision concerned the capacity of the Rohini STP. According to the ACB, when Jain granted approval, the capacity was allegedly increased from 15 million gallons a day (MGD) to 30MGD without a proper study or technical recommendation. “This increased the estimated cost of the project from ₹90 crore to ₹147 crore,” the ACB said.
The ACB also alleged that subsequent meetings were held between Jain and senior DJB officials without any minutes being recorded. The agency said that the specifications and conditions provided by Euroteck officials were subsequently incorporated into the DJB tender documents through a corrigenda. “These changes were made in connivance with senior DJB officials and intermediaries and were intended to favour Euroteck, while putting other potential bidders at a disadvantage”.
As a result, the ACB alleged that Euroteck was able to emerge as the sole technology supplier of IFAS technology with fixed media in the STP tender. The agency alleged that Jain was in contact with one Vinod Chauhan, who, according to the ACB, “was connected with hawala operators allegedly involved in the movement of bribe money along with senior DJB officials”.
The ACB also alleged that Jain did not cooperate with the investigation. “When questioned about the approvals granted by him in relation to the tender process, Jain maintained that he was not a subject expert and had granted the approvals in good faith,” the ACB said.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Jain, argued that he had acted on the basis of the recommendations of the technical committee and hence, could not attract any liability. “It was a policy decision. I never thrust upon my opinion. It was based on the recommendations of the technical committee”.
The agency’s investigation so far has found that three companies were awarded tenders, estimated initially at ₹1,546 crore, to the tune of ₹1,943 crore.
Frequently Asked Questions
