New Delhi: A local court Thursday came down heavily on the Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for an “unexplained and extraordinary delay” of 27 months between the registration of an FIR and the arrest of former cabinet minister Satyendar Jain in a case related to alleged irregularities in the tender of Delhi Jal Board (DJB).
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh pulled up the ACB for choosing to arrest Jain, a senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, despite failing to identify any new evidence or circumstances warranting his arrest.
The court emphasised that a sudden arrest towards the fag end of the probe, without any change in circumstances, reeked of arbitrariness.
“Firstly, the unexplained and extraordinary delay of 27 months between the registration of FIR No. 10/2024 (11.05.2024) and the applicant’s arrest (on 18.08.2026) indicates that the investigating agency did not consider his physical custody necessary for over two years. The prosecution has failed to identify any new or sudden intervening circumstance that warranted his arrest after such a prolonged gap,” the judge observed, while granting bail to Jain.
The ACB had arrested Jain and five others, including former DJB CEO Udit Prakash Rai, in its probe into the allocation of a tender to upgrade the sewage treatment plants (STPs) in Delhi.
The probe agency had alleged that Jain chaired a meeting with DJB officials, including Rai, on 31 August, 2021 in which it was decided that only IFAS Fixed Media technology would be considered for the upgrade of 10 STPs, leaving only one bidder, Euroteck Environmental Pvt. Ltd (EEPL), for the process.
The EEPL appointed a firm managed by the nephew of Jain’s alleged long-time aide and neighbour Vinod Chauhan as commission agent at 3 percent of the billing.
Not much seems to have been achieved during this long period besides collecting replies,responses and documents, the judge 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 judge also flagged the inconsistencies in the ACB approach of not seeking police custody after arresting Jain, essentially meaning that there was no requirement of a custodial interrogation.
“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.”
The same set of accused persons, including Jain, were earlier charged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case and the agency filed its prosecution without making any arrest, the court said.
(Edited by Tony Rai)