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 within the DJB STP Tender rip-off 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 within the like quantity.
The Court has directed that Jain shall not depart the nation with out prior permission of the court docket and give up his passport. It can also be directed the if he want to journey exterior Delhi for greater than 2 days throughout investigation, he’ll inform the Investigation Officer and take his prior permission to journey.
On August 25, the court docket reserved its order on the bail software of Satyender Jain. During the arguments on the bail software, 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 stated.
He had additional submitted that there was no necessity for arrest as Jain had all the time cooperated with the investigation. It was additionally submitted that the ACB registered the FIR on the idea of data supplied by the ED. However, there isn’t a hyperlink of proceeds of crime linked to Satyender Jain within the cash laundering case, the senior advocate submitted.
The senior advocate additionally submitted that the augmentation was from 15 to 25 MGD. The resolution was taken on the idea of the advice of a technical committee. The peak capability was 30 MGD. He additional submitted that this case is expounded to coverage decision-making and the courts will not be anticipated to enter into the realm of coverage issues.
The accused’s presence could be ensured by imposing circumstances. He will not be a flight threat. In the ED’s case, no accused was arrested, the senior counsel submitted.
ACB Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat, whereas opposing the bail plea, stated that the investigation was on the preliminary stage. It ought to be thought of on the time of grant of bail.
It was additionally submitted by the ACB that Jain was non-cooperative with the investigation. The public prosecutor submitted that the investigation was pending. There was proof towards the accused.
The senior advocate rebutted that what the investigating officer had submitted was in relation to the coverage. The paperwork the ACB was referring to had been obtained from the ED. The investigation was not on the preliminary stage because it had been ongoing since May 2024.
He additional submitted that the issuance of the corrigendum was associated to the coverage taken by the particular person concerned. The corrigendum was issued when Satyender Jain was in custody. Senior Advocate Hariharan stated that the Prevention of Corruption Act didn’t appeal to on this case.
Jain and 5 different accused individuals have been arrested in an alleged case of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) STP Tender rip-off. All the accused are in judicial custody until September 3.
It is alleged that the specs of the tenders had been manipulated so as to favour sure corporations.
The ACB has stated that the investigation discovered that these adjustments had been meant to favour the specs of M/s Eurotech, adversely affected different opponents/individuals, and enabled M/s Eurotech to develop into the only expertise provider of IFAS Technology with Fixed Media within the STP Tender.
It unearthed the nexus between Rajkumar Kurra, Nagendra Yadav and the abovesaid DJB officers in securing undue profit for M/s Eurotech by manipulation of the tender circumstances. The position and connivance of Satyender Jain within the above manipulation has been revealed. Hence, prior approval beneath Section 17A of the POC Act towards him has been obtained from the competent authority, the ACB stated.
The investigation company stated that information obtained through the investigation discovered that Satyender Jain had identified Vinod Chauhan since 2010 and that Vinod Chauhan had a garment showroom close to his workplace at Pitampura, Delhi.
The ACB had said that Vinod Chauhan had performed an important position as a intermediary in offering tender work to a particular expertise supplier in lieu of giant funds obtained from the expertise supplier firm to his nephew’s firm, M/s Srijanhar Enterprises (Pankaj Verma’s firm account). He additionally obtained an quantity to the tune of Rs. 81 lakh from M/s Dhanvine Engineering, which was really obtained as a kickback from M/s Euroteck.
It can also be alleged that the evaluation of the cellphones of Nagendra Yadav revealed that on 07.05.2022, Vinod Chauhan had shared the main points of the hawala operator with him by two WhatsApp messages, which contained a one-rupee denomination Indian forex be aware bearing serial No. ’39F 229573′ and the identify of the hawala operator, ‘Rocky’. The message was additional shared on 07.05.2022 by Nagendra Yadav with Rajkumar Kurra.
The ACB had additionally said that in an vital assembly on 22.12.2021, M/s Euroteck entered into an settlement with M/s Srijanhar Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Pankaj Verma (nephew of Vinod Chauhan), appointing it as an authorised advertising agent for merchandise of M/s Euroteck to promote and market them and entitling it to obtain a fee on the price of three% of the whole funds obtained by Euroteck from DJB tender works.
Later, it was discovered that M/s Srijanhar Enterprises didn’t carry out any work. The stated settlement was only a facade to obtain fee/bribe from M/s Euroteck. (ANI)