The court reserved its judgment as it noted the CBIs contention that it had reasons for not opposing similar pleas made by DMK MP Kanimozhi and four others.
Concluding the prolonged proceedings in the petitions filed by the five executives of the telecom companies seeking bail in the 2G case, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment as it noted the Central Bureau of Investigation’s contention that it had reasons for not opposing similar pleas made by DMK MP Kanimozhi and four others.
It is for the special court to take a call on its stand, the CBI said on Tuesday. Agency’s response came on the court’s query over its selective stand on granting bail to the spectrum accused including former telecom minister A Raja.
Earlier, counsel for the accused Ram Jethmalani drew the apex court’s attention to the CBI’s stance regarding five accused before the special spectrum case judge OP Saini.
He represents Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra, Swan Telecom Director Vinod Goenka and Reliance ADAG executives Hari Nair, Gautam Doshi and Surendra Pipara.
The CBI has shown indifference to the bail pleas made by Kanimozhi, Kalaignar TV Managing Director Sharath Kumar, directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal and Bollywood producer Karim Morani. Judge Saini will pronounce the order regarding the bail plea by these five accused on November 3.
All the accused have pleaded that they have not done anything wrong and refuted the charge of drawing illegal benefits in allocation of 2G spectrum.
Meanwhile, it was another rough day for the media persons covering the spectrum cases before the top court. Anguished over the media coverage, the bench of justices GS Singhvi and HL Dattu expressed “deep anguish” over the distorted reporting on what happened in court on Monday. “It is most unfortunate and regrettable. It is an attempt to browbeat the court. Another attempt is made to tarnish the image of CBI and special public prosecutor UU Lalit. Some day they (media) will be in trouble. We are heading for that”, the court warned.
It also clarified that the court had never taken umbrage at the CBI’s dual stance on the bail pleas in the 2G case. The court had just asked the CBI to inform it on whether the SPP had opposed the bail or not, but the media used the expression ‘questioned’, which the court said wasn’t the case.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}