'The allegation that Unitech group companies were ineligible for the licenses as their object clause did not mention telecom as one of their area of business is absurd and foolish,' noted criminal lawyer Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Chandra of Unitech Wireless.
Sanjay Chandra, managing director of Unitech group who along with four other corporate honchos is in jail in connection with the second-generation (2G) mobile telephony spectrum scam, today told the Delhi high court that he did not "manipulate" documents to make his eight companies eligible for the UAS licences.
"The allegation that Unitech group companies were ineligible for the licenses as their object clause did not mention telecom as one of their area of business is absurd and foolish," noted criminal lawyer Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Chandra of Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd, told Justice Ajit Bharihoke.
Jethmalani rubbished the special court's order refusing bail to Chandra and four others Swan Telecom director Vinod Goenka and three top officials of Reliance ADA Group Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair.
The corporate accused are in Tihar Jail since their bail plea was dismissed by the special court in Delhi on April 20.
Responding to allegations of special prosecutor UU Lalit that Unitech was "ineligible" for the UAS licence, Jethmalani said "it is a fact that ours was a real estate company and got changed the object clause and intimated the Registrar of Companies. And this did not amount to cheating."
"I have not made any false statement of any kind," he said.
Initiating arguments, he urged the court not to treat the case and the accused as different from other "normal matters" and rebuked CBI for its role.
"This case has not arisen because of the honest efforts of CBI after registration of the FIR. CBI cannot claim any credit. The investigation moved because of some other persons. The probe and its result have noting to do with the commitment of CBI," he said.
Jethmalani told the court that it should not form an opinion that the Supreme Court has approved the charge sheet.
"The trial court had no jurisdiction to take me to custody, compel me to apply for the bail and then deny it. The normal process was that I should have been released on furnishing of bonds," he said.
Recently, it has become "fashionable" for probe agencies to oppose bail on the ground that investigation was not over but in this case even chargesheet has been filed.
"Allow me to enjoy my freedom. Allow me to fight my case", Jethmalani said.
The court has fixed the case for further hearing on May 2.
){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}