Delhi Jal Board tender scam case: Court reserves order on Satyendar Jain's bail plea

The Rouse Avenue court reserved an order on the bail application of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain for September 3. The AAP leader was arrested in the alleged Delhi Jal Board Sewage Treatment Plant tender scam case.

A Rouse Avenue court reserved an order on the bail application of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain for September 3. The AAP leader was arrested in the alleged Delhi Jal Board Sewage Treatment Plant tender scam case. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh heard arguments on the bail application of Satyendar Jain and reserved the order. Jain was present during the hearing.

The other three accused, namely Pankaj Verma, Udit Prakash Rai and Raj Kumar Kurra, were also present during the hearing. The court allowed Udit Prakash Rai's request for his production through video conferencing on September 3. He submitted that he has some health issues and he has claustrophobia.

During the arguments, Senior Advocate N Hariharan along with Advocate Vivek Jain submitted that Satyendar Jain had been arrested by ACB after 27 months of registration of the FIR in May 2024. Senior Advocate Hariharan further submitted that there is no necessity of arrest as Jain always cooperated with the investigation. It was also submitted that ACB registered the FIR on the basis of information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), despite there being no link of proceeds of crime connected to Satyender Jain in the money laundering case.

Senior advocate also submitted that the augmentation was from 15 to 25 MGD. The decision was taken on the basis of the recommendation of the technical committee. The peak capacity was 30 MGD. He further submitted that this case is related to policy decision-making and the courts are not expected to enter into the area of policy matters. The accused's presence can be ensured by imposing conditions. He is not at a flight risk. In ED's case, no accused was arrested, senior counsel submitted. ACB's public prosecutor Manish Rawat, while opposing the bail plea, said that the investigation at the initial stage. It should be considered at the time of grant of bail. It was also submitted by the ACB that Jain was non-cooperative during the investigation. The public prosecutor submitted that the investigation is pending, and there was evidence against the accused.

Senior Advocate Hariharan rebutted that what the Investigating Officer submitted is in relation to the policy. The documents the ACB is referring to were received from the ED. The investigation is not at the initial stage as it is ongoing since May 2024. He further submitted that the issuance of the corrigendum is related to the policy decision taken by the person involved. The corrigendum was issued when Satyendar Jain was in custody. Senior advocate Hariharan said that the case does not attract the Prevention of Corruption Act. Jain and five other accused persons have been arrested in an alleged case of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) STP Tender scam. All accused are in judicial custody till September 3.

It is alleged that the investigation revealed that the technical proposal for the augmentation of the Rohini STP from 15 MGD to 25 MGD was altered by the then-Minister, who approved an enhancement to 30 MGD without any technical recommendation or feasibility study. Similarly, the Rohini and Narela STPs were included in the project, while the Okhla Phase-V STP was excluded, resulting in an estimated cost escalation of approximately Rs 123 crore. The Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) contends that these arbitrary decisions by Minister (Jain) were taken without adequate technical justification.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has alleged that tender specifications were manipulated to favour certain companies. According to the ACB, the investigation found that changes made to the tender specifications were intended to favour M/s Eurotech, adversely affecting other competitors and participants and enabling the company to become the sole technology supplier of IFAS Technology with Fixed Media under the STP tender.

The agency alleged that the investigation unearthed a nexus between Rajkumar Kurra, Nagendra Yadav and the concerned DJB officials to secure undue benefit for M/s Eurotech through manipulation of tender conditions. The ACB also alleged that the role and connivance of former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in the alleged manipulation had emerged during the investigation. Accordingly, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained from the competent authority for further action against him, the agency said.

The investigation records, according to the ACB, also showed that Satyendar Jain had known Vinod Chauhan since 2010 and that Chauhan had a garment showroom near Jain's office in Pitampura, Delhi. The agency alleged that Chauhan acted as a middleman in facilitating tender work for a specific technology provider in return for funds allegedly received from the company. It further alleged that funds were routed to M/s Srijanhar Enterprises, a proprietorship firm of Pankaj Verma, who is Chauhan's nephew.

The ACB also alleged that Chauhan received Rs 81 lakh from M/s Dhanvine Engineering, which the agency claimed was actually a kickback from M/s Eurotech. According to the ACB, analysis of Nagendra Yadav's mobile phone revealed that on May 7, 2022, Vinod Chauhan had shared details of a hawala operator with him through two WhatsApp messages. The messages allegedly contained details of a one-rupee Indian currency note bearing serial number "39F 229573" and the name of the alleged hawala operator, "Rocky". The agency said Yadav subsequently forwarded the message to Rajkumar Kurra on the same day.

The ACB further alleged that on December 22, 2021, M/s Eurotech entered into an agreement with M/s Srijanhar Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Pankaj Verma, appointing it as an authorised marketing agent for Eurotech products. Under the agreement, Srijanhar Enterprises was entitled to receive a commission of three per cent of the total payments received by Eurotech from DJB tender works, according to the agency.

The ACB alleged that Srijanhar Enterprises did not perform any work under the agreement and claimed that the arrangement was a facade allegedly created to receive commission or bribes from M/s Eurotech. (ANI)