New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to clarify whether it had not opposed the bail pleas of DMK MP Kanimozhi and four other accused in the 2G scam before the trial court.
The apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu sought the clarification from the probe agency after senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for an accused, told the court that the CBI did not oppose the bail plea of the five accused.
The CBI Oct 24 told Special Court Judge O.P. Saini that it had no objection to bail being given to Kanimozhi, promoters of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Asif Balwa and Rajeev B. Agarwal, Cineyug Film’s Karim Morani and Kalaignar TV’s managing director Sharad Kumar. The court reserved its order on their bail applications for Nov 3.
The apex court judges said they don’t go by newspaper reports and asked Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval: ‘Is it a fact that in case of five of the 17 accused the CBI had no objection to their bail.’
The apex court judges said: ‘We want to ask when you are so sure that they won’t tamper with the evidence then what is the necessity for the trial judge to keep them behind the bars.’
The court told Raval: ‘In view of what has transpired in the trial court and the statement made by Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohtagi, it would be appropriate (that) you seek your instructions and tell us tomorrow (Tuesday).’
Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi appeared for Vinod Goenka of DB Reality.
Earlier appearing for Reliance Telecom’s Surendra Pipara and Hari Nayar, senior counsel Ashok Desai told the court that the two charges levelled against them were that of conspiracy and cheating.
He said: ‘What is my cheating and whom have I cheated.’
The court was told that Reliance Telecom had exited from Swan Telecom in October 2007 after it got the dual technology licence in August that year. Desai said there were no allegation of conspiracy till that point of time.
Assailing the Delhi High Court judgment holding that because of the gravity of the offence his clients were likely to tamper with the evidence, Desai told the apex court that a person can’t be denied bail and deprived of liberty merely on ‘assumption and interpretation’.
Desai said ‘the CBI case is based on documents which are in its possession and these are the documents (that) I will also rely in my defence’.
He also faulted the high court reasoning in not accepting the health condition of Pipara as a ground for giving him bail.
Appearing for Reliance Telecom’s Gautam Doshi, senior counsel Soli Sorabjee assailed the high court verdict which said the fact that his client was not arrested only went to show his influence.
‘I can’t understand the high court order that the fact that you were not arrested only goes to show your influence,’ Sorabjee told the court.
Sorabjee wondered how could there be a guarantee against apprehensions. ‘Do you need a bank guarantee,’ Sorabjee said pointing to the high court judgment declining bail to Doshi.
Opposing the bail plea, Raval told the court that there was a prima facie case against the three officials as was evident from the framing of charges against them by the trial court.
