New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday sent former minister Satyendar Jain and four others to judicial custody until September 3 in a corruption case involving the Delhi Jal Board.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh sent Jain, former Delhi Jal Board CEO Udit Prakash Rai, and private persons Nagendra Yadav, Raja Kumar Kurra and Pankaj Verma to 14-day judicial custody.
Ankit Srivastava, a former contractual consultant with the DJB, was sent to two days’ police custody.
The matter pertained to a tender awarded to Ms Euroteck Environmental Private Limited when Jain was the Delhi water minister.
Citing the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) claim, the court said, “The investigating agency alleges briefly that there was manipulation of tender conditions, as the tendering process was deliberately made technology-centric to favour M/s Euroteck Environmental Pvt Ltd.” The court noted that an initially planned pilot study was never conducted and the tender was restricted to one IFAS technology.
“Allegedly, during the preparation of the Terms of Reference, a proposal to relax Oxygen Transfer Efficiency from 4 kg/kWh to 2kg/kWh to encourage competition was rejected by the DJB CEO (Udit Prakash) and the Minister of Water (Satyendar Jain),” the court noted.
Noting the ACB’s claims, the court said the restrictive condition for the tender was removed through a corrigendum after most bidders had left the process.
“The investigating agency contends that the mandatory National Green Tribunal and Central Pollution Control Board water quality standards were diluted, especially three essential parameters — pH, chemical oxygen demand and total nitrate, which were removed without justification — and it reduced the project cost for the provider while harming the environment,” it said.
Jain allegedly arbitrarily increased the capacity of the Rohini Sewage Treatment Plan (STP) from 15 million gallons per day (mgd) to 30 mgd without a technical feasibility study, resulting in a cost escalation of around Rs 123 crore, the court said.
It also noted the ACB allegation of a money trail where commissions were routed through intermediaries to the bank accounts of various accused persons.
The case was registered following a Directorate of Vigilance reference on May 10, 2024, regarding large-scale corruption in the Delhi Jal Board’s award of contracts for augmentation and upgradation of 10 STPs, it noted.
“These 10 STPs were divided into four packages with a total tendered value of approximately Rs 1,943 crore. FIR was registered on May 11, 2024, under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code,” the court said.
It noted Jain’s defence that, as a minister, he was not a subject-matter expert and merely relied on the technical recommendations and notings made by DJB officers, including engineers, and that his decisions cannot be faulted.
“He asserts that neither ACB nor DoE has identified any bribe, commission or proceeds of crime traced directly to him and his custody is absolutely unjustified. He argues that the commercial award and negotiations for the tender that occurred after he was taken in custody in another case in May 2022 cannot be imputed to him. He also highlights his prolonged health condition following spine surgery in 2024,” the court said.
The grounds of arrest were given in writing to all the six accused persons and their relatives, the court said, dismissing the defence argument that the reasons for arrest were only mentioned towards the end of the document.
“Be it noted here that Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of IPC has also been invoked in this matter together with conspiracy, and the maximum punishment provided therein is up to imprisonment for life. Therefore, the argument of the accused persons as to breach of Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (conditions when police may arrest without warrant) may not hold water,” it said.
The court said it cannot be claimed that the investigating officer could not have arrested the accused when they last appeared before him on Tuesday, merely on the ground that the accused have joined the investigation at earlier instances whenever called.
“Having gone through the police file, (and) the contentions raised by both the sides, it cannot be claimed at this stage, prima facie, that the arrest is illegal or unjustified,” it said, allowing the ACB’s plea for 14-day judicial custody of the five accused.
However, the court also issued a notice to the ACB on the bail plea of the accused persons.
“Notice on those bail applications is being issued to the investigating agency. Once the replies to those bail applications are received, those bail applications would be appropriately considered,” it said.
Regarding Srivastava’s custodial interrogation, the court said it is justified and necessary for a fair investigation, and for recovery of his mobile phone, which could be a crucial piece of evidence.
