The court asked why the agency is adopting a selective approach on bail pleas of accused
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been caught on the wrong foot over its stance on bail to some accused in the 2G spectrum scam such as DMK MP Kanimozhi while showing aversion to similar relief being sought by corporate honchos in the Tihar jail.
During the inconclusive hearing of the bail pleas by five executives of telecom companies, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the agency whether it is opposed to their petitions. If the agency is sure that evidence will not be tampered with, then why the accused persons have been kept in jail, the court asked agency’s counsel UU Lalit.
“When you are sure they will not tamper with the evidence, why keep them behind bars?” judges asked the agency. “When you do not want them for further investigations, why keep them in jail?” Judges asked the agency to let it know by 3.50 pm on Tuesday about its call on bail to the petitioners.
The five executives are Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra, Swan Telecom’s Director Vinod Goenka and Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani group’s executives Hari Nair, Gautam Doshi and Surendra Pipara.
Earlier on October 24, the agency did not oppose the bail pleas of five other accused namely Kanimozhi, Kalaignar TV MD Sharath Kumar, directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal and Bollywood producer Karim Morani before the special CBI court.
The CBI had, however, opposed the bail pleas of Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa and former telecom minister A Raja’s former private secretary RK Chandolia in the trial court.
At an earlier hearing, the apex court had pointed out that the spectrum case accused could seek bail after framing of charges against them.
Joining the legal debate, Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh also questioned the agency for opposing the bail pleas made by all the spectrum case accused.
Counsel for the bail seekers Ram Jethmalani insisted that since the charge sheets had been filed against his clients, there was no relevance for depriving them of their ‘personal liberty’.
){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}