New Delhi [India], August 19 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday remanded Delhi Jal Board (DJB) consultant Ankit Shrivastava to one day of police custody in connection with the alleged Delhi Jal Board sewage treatment plant (STP) scam, while former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain and four other accused were sent to 14 days of judicial custody.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh remanded Satyendar Jain and four other accused – Udit Prakash, former CEO of the Delhi Jal Board, Raj Kumar Kurra, Nagendra Yadav and Pankaj Verma – to 14 days of judicial custody.
While allowing the police custody application, the court said that keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, so far as two days police custody application of accused Ankit Srivastava is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that his two days police custody is justified and necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.
The court said, “His police custody is indeed necessary for fair investigation, for recovery of his mobile phone which would be a crucial piece of evidence; his custodial interrogation is also necessary to unearth the other aspects of the conspiracy including other persons involved.”
“Accordingly, application preferred by Ankit Srivastava to reject his remand is disallowed. And application for his two days police custody preferred by the investigating agency ACB, is allowed. He is remanded to police custody till 21.08.2026 at 2.00 PM,” Special Judge ordered on August 19.
The Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) sought judicial custody of Satyendar Kumar Jain, former Minister of Water, GNCTD; Udit Prakash Rai (IAS), former CEO, Delhi Jal Board; Nagendra Yadav, proprietor of M/s AN Enterprises; Raja Kumar Kurra, owner of M/s Euroteck Environment Pvt Ltd; and Pankaj Verma, proprietor of M/s Srijanhar.
Delhi Jal Board consultant Ankit Shrivastava has been sent to two days of ACB (police) custody. He will be produced before the court on August 21.
The court has listed Udit Prakash’s bail plea for hearing tomorrow at 12 noon. Other bail applications, including that of Satyendar Jain, have been listed for hearing on August 25. Ankit Shrivastava’s bail application has also been filed and will be heard after his police custody is over.
The court has issued notice to the ACB on the bail pleas of the accused.
Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat appeared for the ACB and sought judicial custody of five accused and police custody of Ankit Shrivastava.
The ACB alleged that the investigation disclosed that the technical proposal for augmentation of the Rohini STP from 15 MGD to 25 MGD was altered by the then Minister, who approved enhancement to 30 MGD without any technical recommendation or feasibility study.
Similarly, Rohini and Narela STPs were included in the project while the Okhla Phase-V STP was excluded, resulting in an estimated escalation of approximately Rs 123 crore. These decisions were allegedly taken without adequate technical justification.
The ACB also submitted that Nagendra Yadav acted as an intermediary between officials of the DJB and representatives of Euroteck. According to the agency, KVNS Rao of Euroteck handed a letter to Yadav, who subsequently delivered it to the office of Satyendar Jain.
The ACB alleged that Jain thereafter directed Ankit Shrivastava, a contractual consultant with the DJB, to coordinate with Rao regarding a meeting after sharing Rao’s visiting card. A screenshot of the chat between Rao and Shrivastava was recovered from Rao’s mobile phone, the agency said.
The investigation also allegedly revealed dilution of environmental norms prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The CPCB had prescribed eight mandatory parameters for treated effluent quality, but only five were incorporated into the tender documents. Important parameters such as pH, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Total Nitrogen (N-Total) were allegedly omitted, diluting environmental safeguards and allegedly benefiting the technology provider.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Satyendar Jain, opposed the judicial custody application. He submitted that the tenders were floated in October 2022 when Jain was already in custody in another case.
He argued that there was no evidence connecting Jain with the tender process and said no case for his arrest was made out. “On the basis of the amount recovered from other accused, ACB cannot arrest Jain,” Hariharan submitted.
He further argued that Jain had not obstructed the investigation and that all the evidence collected was already before the investigating officer. “What are you going to recover from him? Judicial custody is not required as the arrest is illegal,” he submitted.
Advocate Vivek Jain also appeared for Satyendar Jain and argued that there was no requirement for his arrest as there were no proceeds of crime.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh appeared for Nagendra Yadav.
Counsel for former DJB CEO Udit Prakash submitted that his alleged role was limited to the floating of the tender. He was relieved from the post of CEO of the Delhi Jal Board on May 30, 2022, and is currently serving as a secretary in the Mizoram government.
“There is no requirement of arrest as he is the secretary in the Mizoram government. How can he tamper with the evidence?” the counsel argued.
Counsel for Raj Kumar Kurra submitted that his client was not the person who was awarded the tender and was not named in the FIR.
Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj appeared for Ankit Shrivastava and opposed the remand application. He argued that it was the investigating officer’s duty to establish the necessity of arrest and submitted that Shrivastava had appeared before the investigating officer on August 5.
“The investigating officer concealed this fact,” Bhardwaj argued, adding that the remand application was silent on Shrivastava’s appearance before the investigating officer.
He said Shrivastava was an expert engineer appointed to work on cleaning the Yamuna and questioned the basis of his arrest.
“It is not a case where Ankit Shrivastava was produced before the court within 24 hours. Ankit was called at 10 in the morning and he has been produced today,” he argued.
Satyendar Jain also addressed the court and said the government had decided to clean the Yamuna by augmenting existing STPs.
“The cost of existing STP is half than the new one. Then the augmentation of existing STPs. It was decided to increase the capacity of the existing STPs. I was minister for eight ministries. I was bound to accept the technical advice,” Jain said.
He said that when the tenders were floated, the tender amount was around Rs 1,546 crore.
Jain further argued that he was not connected with the corrigendum and had been removed as minister on May 30. “I had no portfolio. Work was awarded six months after my exit,” he said.
Jain also questioned the allegation that the tender amount was inflated, saying that if Rs 1,938 crore was considered acceptable, the Rs 1,546 crore tender could not be termed inflated.
“It is a classic case where Jain was roped in. If the tender was okay at Rs 1,938 crore, then it was okay for Rs 1,546 crore,” the former minister said.
While seeking custody of the accused, the ACB submitted that there were irregularities in the STP tender process. It alleged that on August 29, 2021, Ankit Shrivastava had sent a message to employees of a company.
The agency also alleged that the cost of the project was escalated by crores of rupees and that two meetings were held on December 22 and 23, 2022, during which a deal for a two per cent commission was allegedly struck.
According to the ACB, three companies were involved, but the investigation revealed that Hitachi and Avigo did not manufacture the required equipment, while Euroteck was the only accused company manufacturing it.
The agency alleged that Shrivastava sent the corrigendum to the owner of the company despite having no business with the STP, attended a meeting and shared the corrigendum.
It was also submitted that sludge treatment was separated from the STP project to invite a separate tender. The corrigendum was uploaded on the DJB website but was not published in newspapers, the ACB alleged.
The agency further alleged that Rs 2.7 crore was transferred from Euroteck to Srijanhar without any work being carried out. Of this amount, Rs 1.22 crore allegedly went to another company.
The ACB also alleged that Rs 61 lakh was transferred to Udit Prakash through banking channels and that an agreement showing it as a loan was dated January 10, 2023.
The agency said Udit Prakash had attended two meetings as CEO of the DJB.
Rebutting the ACB’s arguments, advocate Rajat Bhardwaj said that if the agency wanted to trace the proceeds of crime, it had to establish the same before the court.
“If they wanted to trace proceeds of crime, they must show that to the court. How can you change your stand? They have to tell the court what I have done after August 5,” Bhardwaj argued. (ANI)
Related reading
