New Delhi, Sep 9 A Delhi court on Wednesday granted regular bail to five accused, including former Delhi Jal Board CEO Udit Prakash Rai, in an alleged corruption case involving the Board.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts granted bail to Rai, Ankit Srivastava, a former DJB contractual consultant, and private persons - Nagendra Yadav, Raja Kumar Kurra and Pankaj Verma.
“Without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case as to any of the allegations, the regular bail applications of the five accused are allowed,” the court said.
It directed the five accused to furnish a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two sureties of the like amount. The court also imposed several bail conditions, including that they must surrender their passports, must not leave the country without prior permission, must not contact or influence any witnesses associated with the case, and must continue joining the investigation as and when required.
Earlier on September 3, the court had granted bail to AAP leader and former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in the case, saying the evidence before it is “prima facie insufficient” to deny relief.
The court on Wednesday said that the evidence in this case is primarily documentary in nature and is in the custody of the investigating agencies.
It said all the applicants meet the triple test criteria for grant of bail as they have deep roots in society, are permanent residents, and none of them poses any risk of absconding or fleeing from justice, or tampering with the evidence.
Regarding Rai, the court said, “Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) has already investigated the money trail with minute details and even DoE did not think it necessary to arrest the applicant (Rai).”
It said although the DoE case and the predicate case (of the Anti-Corruption Bureau) are indeed separate and distinct cases independent of each other, one cannot lose sight of the fact that a person against whom a money trail is claimed has been thoroughly investigated and yet his arrest was not even thought to be necessary.
So the former DJB CEO cannot be kept in jail for the same money trail in the predicate offence, particularly when he had provided “a plausible explanation”, the court said, adding that the alleged hawala transactions had no direct connection with Rai.
It said, “After all, one wonders as to what purpose would be served by keeping accused 2 (Rai) in custody when those allegations are yet to be proved. It would amount to pre-trial punishment. From the date of his arrest till now, around 20 days have elapsed, and the continued incarceration prima facie seems unnecessary.”
“Indeed, anybody who joins a conspiracy, even after it is initially hatched and during its subsistence, would be liable for the actions of others, but in this case the allegations are yet to be established, which can be done only during trial and presuming any such conspiracy would be against the canons of justice and would be nothing short of pre-trial punishment,” the court added.
It further said that Rai was an executive officer and not a technical person, and the tendering process was awarded after his transfer.
Regarding Yadav, the court said that he cannot be denied bail on the ground that the money-trail investigation is in progress and the complete proceeds of the crime have not yet been recovered.
It said no specific amount has been traced to the personal account of Kurra and the beneficiary of the alleged transactions was a company where he was an executive director.
“When accused 5 (Verma) joined the investigation earlier and voluntarily tendered his banking ledgers, tax returns, invoices, what is left to be further recovered from him. In any case, he was taken into two days’ police custody, in which nothing came out against him.”
“Thereafter, his police custody was never sought again. There is thus nothing which remains to be recovered from his possession,” the court said, adding that he also cannot be denied bail.
The court clarified that its observations at the bail stage would not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.
