Court grants bail to Satyendar Jain in Jal Board case, raps ACB over ‘arbitrary’ arrest

New Delhi, Sep 3 (PTI) A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to AAP leader and former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in a corruption case involving the Delhi Jal Board, saying the evidence before it is "prima facie insufficient" to deny relief.

Pulling up the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), the court said that "a sudden arrest at the tail end of the investigation, without strong reasons and without a change in circumstances, tends to invite criticism that it is arbitrary".

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, who was hearing Jain's plea seeking regular bail in the case where he had been remanded to 14-day judicial custody on August 19, also said that pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into an advanced form of punitive punishment.

He said, "The allegations are primarily against the other co-accused persons, and it is alleged that the applicant, who was the minister at the time, was in conspiracy and aided the illegal transactions." The court underlined that in the given context, even if the statements on record and the other evidentiary material are taken into account, Jain's complicity will have to be established at trial, and, if convicted, he could be sentenced.

"The material till now is prima facie insufficient to deny the applicant bail; the applicant's availability for further investigation, interrogation, and trial is not in question. He is already held not to be a flight risk and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence or of influencing/intimidating the witnesses. He is no longer a minister or MLA," the court said.

"Taking these and all other facts and circumstances, including the duration of custody, into consideration, the applicant is entitled to be granted bail," it added.

In its 28-page order, the court provided several other reasons for granting the relief to the ex-minister, such as the "unexplained and extraordinary delay" of 27 months between the registration of the FIR in May 2024 and Jain's arrest in August 2026.

The case pertains to a tender awarded to Ms Euroteck Environmental Private Limited when Jain was the Delhi water minister.

The ACB alleged that there was manipulation of tender conditions, as the tendering process was deliberately made technology-centric to favour Euroteck Environmental.

The court said that the investigating agency did not consider Jain's physical custody necessary for over two years and failed to identify any new or sudden intervening circumstance that warranted his arrest after such a prolonged gap.

It said, "When an investigating agency has conducted its investigation for years without arresting an accused, and the accused has joined the investigation process, a sudden arrest at the tail end of the investigation, without strong reasons and without a change in circumstances, tends to invite criticism that it is arbitrary." The court further said that the entire case rests on documentary and electronic evidence, and that all relevant notes, files, technical proposals, and bank statements have already been seized by the ACB and the Directorate of Enforcement.

It said the ACB's claim that there is a possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses seems to be nothing but "a stereotyped one".

The prosecution has presented no plausible reasons that the applicant is a flight risk and his presence can be adequately secured through appropriate, stringent bail conditions, it said.

So, Jain fulfilled the "triple test" for bail, which examines flight risk, potential for tampering, and availability for trial, the court said.

"The ACB's decision not to seek police custody upon the applicant's arrest or thereafter till now, and the request of only judicial custody, demonstrates that there is no active requirement for custodial interrogation. Continued detention in judicial custody cannot be justified on the generic plea that a conspiracy is yet to be unearthed," it added.

The court said prima facie, none of the WhatsApp chat links Jain and that there are no other phone call records or SMS messages that could presently connect him to the "kickbacks and hawala transactions with other co-accused persons in the conspiracy".

"It is an admitted case of the investigating agency that the contracts were awarded in July 2022, after the present applicant was arrested (on May 30, 2022) and was in custody in another case," the court said.

It said it is not a case where the work was awarded, and payment was made without performance or execution of the work.

"Till date, no objection has been received from any quarter regarding the quality of the work performed or the standards achieved in the discharge after treatment as per the objectives enumerated in the tender.

"Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) is admittedly monitoring the five standards specified in the contract on a regular basis, and no complaints have been received from their side either," the court said.

It said that Jain approved the total estimate of Rs 1,546.32 crore for the 10 sewage treatment plants (STPs) on January 14, 2022, based on a note prepared by the chief engineer and signed by the member (drainage) and the CEO (co-accused in the case) before his signature.

The court noted that the CEO forwarded this note after multiple discussions between the chief engineer and the member (drainage) regarding the amount.

"A few decisions taken by the applicant in this matter, as evident from the contents of the notes, etc., do raise eyebrows, and he may not be innocent, but by themselves they are not enough at this stage to deny bail. The investigating agency ought to have first conducted a thorough investigation and gathered more evidence before rushing to arrest him," the court said.

It directed Jain to furnish a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two sureties of the like amount.

The court also imposed stringent bail conditions, including that Jain must surrender his passport, shall 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. PTI