New Delhi [India], September 3 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain. He was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on August 18 in the DJB STP Tender scam case.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh granted bail to Satyender Jain. He has been granted bail on a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakh and two surety bonds in the like amount.
The Court has directed that Jain shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court and surrender his passport. It is also directed the if he wish to travel outside Delhi for more than 2 days during investigation, he will inform the Investigation Officer and take his prior permission to travel.
On August 25, the court reserved its order on the bail application of Satyender Jain. During the arguments on the bail application, Senior Advocate N Hariharan had submitted that Jain had been arrested by the ACB after 27 months of registration of the FIR in May 2024, Senior Advocate Hariharan said.
He had further submitted that there was no necessity for arrest as Jain had always cooperated with the investigation. It was also submitted that the ACB registered the FIR on the basis of information provided by the ED. However, there is no link of proceeds of crime connected to Satyender Jain in the money laundering case, the senior advocate submitted.
The senior advocate also submitted that the augmentation was from 15 to 25 MGD. The decision was taken on the basis of the recommendation of a technical committee. The peak capacity was 30 MGD. He further submitted that this case is related to policy decision-making and the courts are not expected to enter into the area of policy matters.
The accused’s presence can be ensured by imposing conditions. He is not a flight risk. In the ED’s case, no accused was arrested, the senior counsel submitted.
ACB Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat, while opposing the bail plea, said that the investigation was at the initial stage. It should be considered at the time of grant of bail.
It was also submitted by the ACB that Jain was non-cooperative with the investigation. The public prosecutor submitted that the investigation was pending. There was evidence against the accused.
The senior advocate rebutted that what the investigating officer had submitted was in relation to the policy. The documents the ACB was referring to were received from the ED. The investigation was not at the initial stage as it had been ongoing since May 2024.
He further submitted that the issuance of the corrigendum was related to the policy taken by the person involved. The corrigendum was issued when Satyender Jain was in custody. Senior Advocate Hariharan said that the Prevention of Corruption Act did not attract in this case.
Jain and five other accused persons have been arrested in an alleged case of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) STP Tender scam. All the accused are in judicial custody till September 3.
It is alleged that the specifications of the tenders were manipulated in order to favour certain companies.
The ACB has said that the investigation found that these changes were intended to favour the specifications of M/s Eurotech, adversely affected other competitors/participants, and enabled M/s Eurotech to become the sole technology supplier of IFAS Technology with Fixed Media in the STP Tender.
It unearthed the nexus between Rajkumar Kurra, Nagendra Yadav and the abovesaid DJB officials in securing undue benefit for M/s Eurotech through manipulation of the tender conditions. The role and connivance of Satyender Jain in the above manipulation has been revealed. Hence, prior approval under Section 17A of the POC Act against him has been obtained from the competent authority, the ACB said.
The investigation agency said that records received during the investigation found that Satyender Jain had known Vinod Chauhan since 2010 and that Vinod Chauhan had a garment showroom near his office at Pitampura, Delhi.
The ACB had stated that Vinod Chauhan had played a vital role as a middleman in providing tender work to a specific technology provider in lieu of huge funds received from the technology provider company to his nephew’s company, M/s Srijanhar Enterprises (Pankaj Verma’s company account). He also received an amount to the tune of Rs. 81 lakh from M/s Dhanvine Engineering, which was actually received as a kickback from M/s Euroteck.
It is also alleged that the analysis of the mobile phones of Nagendra Yadav revealed that on 07.05.2022, Vinod Chauhan had shared the details of the hawala operator with him through two WhatsApp messages, which contained a one-rupee denomination Indian currency note bearing serial No. “39F 229573” and the name of the hawala operator, “Rocky”. The message was further shared on 07.05.2022 by Nagendra Yadav with Rajkumar Kurra.
The ACB had also stated that during an important meeting on 22.12.2021, M/s Euroteck entered into an agreement with M/s Srijanhar Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Pankaj Verma (nephew of Vinod Chauhan), appointing it as an authorised marketing agent for products of M/s Euroteck to sell and market them and entitling it to receive a commission at the rate of 3% of the total payments received by Euroteck from DJB tender works.
Later, it was found that M/s Srijanhar Enterprises did not perform any work. The said agreement was just a facade to receive commission/bribe from M/s Euroteck. (ANI)
Related reading
