New Delhi [India], August 21 (ANI): Former Delhi Jal Board (DJB) CEO Udit Prakash Rai has claimed that his arrest by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) is against the law, as it’s in violation of the Supreme Court pointers within the Arnesh Kumar case, which say that arrest shouldn’t be obligatory the place punishment is lower than 7 years.
Rai, now a secretary in Mizoram Government, has been arrested by ACB in reference to a case alleging corruption in tendering. He was remanded in judicial custody on August 19 alongwith former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain until September 3.
His bail plea was adjourned on Thursday as a result of non-availability of a senior counsel who will argue for him, and the matter has been listed on August 25.
Rai is a Senior IAS officer, and exceeding the 48-hour custodial interval will result in his Automatic Suspension.
It is acknowledged that he has been illegally arrested by the investigating company within the current case, in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
It is contended that the FIR was registered on May 11, 2024, and no cost sheet has been filed by the ACB even after a interval of two years. Therefore, Rai’s custody shouldn’t be required for the needs of the investigation.
Rai’s bail plea has talked about that he absolutely cooperated with the investigating company and had joined the investigation on 18.08.2026 pursuant to a discover beneath Section 41A CrPC dated 07.08.2026.
It is contended that his arrest by the ACB is totally mala fide. He had joined the investigation on 18.08.2026 pursuant to a discover issued to him by the ACB beneath Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 07.08.2026.
His arrest has been termed unlawful, saying that he was illegally arrested by the investigating company within the current case, in violation of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The bail plea additionally referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. It was held by the Apex Court that in circumstances the place a discover beneath Section 35(3) BNSS (equal of Section 41A CrPC) has been issued, the ability to arrest is an exception and the police officer is anticipated to be circumspect and gradual in exercising the stated energy.
It can also be stated that in Chanda Kochhar v. CBI, the Bombay High Court held that if arrest is made pursuant to look of accused beneath Section 41A CrPC discover, then the investigating company has to point out new materials because of which determination of arrest was taken. In the current case, the ACB has failed to point out any new materials on the premise of which the choice of arrest has been taken, rendering the arrest unlawful.
It can also be stated that the grounds of arrest of 18.08.2026 supplied by the prosecuting company are faulty in nature and don’t adjust to the related provisions and judgments of the Hon’ble Courts. Further, such grounds of arrest dated 18.08.2026 solely present ’causes of arrest’ and don’t really present grounds of arrest.
As per the Prosecution, the FIR within the current case was registered on 11 May 2024 by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) beneath Sections 7A,9,13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act & 420,409,418,120B IPC towards M/s Euroteck Environmental Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ayyappa Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., M/s Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s GSJ Envo Limited, M/s Subhash Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Dineshchandra R Aggarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., and different unknown authorities officers, public servants, and personal individuals. The stated FIR was registered in relation to allegations pertaining to the award of contracts for the upgradation/augmentation of 10 Sewage Treatment Plants of the Delhi Jal Board. (ANI)