SC asks Allahabad HC to decide today bail plea of ex-Noida engineer Yadav Singh in corruption case

Singh, former chief maintenance engineer in Noida, is in judicial custody since February 11, 2020 after the CBI arrested him in the third case of corruption registered against him on January 17, 2018. His son, Sunny, had approached the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court with a habeas corpus petition alleging that Yadav Singh has been wrongly incarcerated as only 60 days of judicial custody is permissible under Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and that the duration expired on April 10, 2020.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Allahabad High Court to decide today itself the plea seeking bail for former Noida chief engineer Yadav Singh, who has been arrested by CBI in connection with a corruption case. A bench of Justices R F Nariman, Navin Sinha and B R Gavai said, "The impugned order itself provides that the petition may be taken up and disposed of today. We request the High Court to take up and dispose of the same today itself".

The top court posted the matter for further hearing on July 10. Singh, former chief maintenance engineer in Noida, is in judicial custody since February 11, 2020 after the CBI arrested him in the third case of corruption registered against him on January 17, 2018.

His son, Sunny, had approached the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court with a habeas corpus petition alleging that Yadav Singh has been wrongly incarcerated as only 60 days of judicial custody is permissible under Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and that the duration expired on April 10, 2020. Through the habeas corpus petition, he had contended that CBI failed to file charge sheet within the statutory period of 60 days but the trial court rejected prayer for default bail to Yadav Singh.

On May 6, the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has "dismissed as withdrawn" the habeas corpus petition seeking release of former Noida chief engineer after the CBI raised objections on territorial jurisdiction of the court in the matter but granted liberty to petitioner to move a fresh petition before the principal bench at Allahabad High Court. On June 2, the Allahabad High Court had asked counsel for CBI to file a reply to the petition filed by Sunny Singh for statutory bail for his father.

The CBI, on June 12 filed their counter affidavit to the habeas corpus petition filed by Yadav Singh's son but the court adjourned the matter to June 17, on account being the last day of the bench and the matter requiring some time for detailed hearing. On June 17, the matter was adjourned for July 8 on the ground that the petitioner's counsel requested the court that the matter be heard through video conferencing due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Besides the latest corruption case wherein Yadav Singh is accused of favouring companies of friends and associates in doling out lucrative contracts in Noida, the CBI has booked him in two other corruption cases. These cases pertain to misusing his official position to favour firms in awarding contracts worth over Rs 1,000 crore in Noida and amassing illegitimate assets worth over Rs 23 crore.

The agency had produced 62-year old Yadav Singh before the Ghaziabad Special court after his arrest which sent him to judicial custody. His bail petition was rejected by the special court on April 17, 2020. A habeas corpus writ petition is filed before a competent court to secure release of a person from illegal detention.

Before, the Lucknow bench of the High Court, the CBI had contended that the territorial jurisdiction over Ghaziabad Special court is of Allahabad High Court hence, the matter should be heard by it and not by its Lucknow Bench. The agency had also argued that there was no question of illegal detention as the accused was produced before the special court which remanded him to judicial custody. It said the accused was not in CBI custody.

The agency had booked Yadav Singh on January 17, 2018 for corruption after conducting a preliminary enquiry on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. The agency had already booked him in the two corruption cases previously.

During the course of enquiry, the agency had found that he had allegedly favoured five companies belonging to his friends, associates and family members in awarding huge contracts in Noida..