JOIN USCorporate bigwigs in dock
Senior advocate U U Lalit, who took over as Special Public Prosecutor in the case after his appointment by the Supreme Court, opposed the bail applications of the five top officials belonging to Swan Telecom, Unitech and Reliance’s ADAG.
Special CBI Judge O P Saini, however, granted the CBI two days to file its reply to the bail pleas of the accused, three senior officials of Reliance ADAG Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair, Swan Telecom Director Vinod Goenka and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd Managing Director Sanjay Chandra.
“From being suspects, they have now become accused and hence, will have to justify their bail plea. The status of a person changes in law after filing of the chargesheet. They are not entitled to release on bail ipso facto (by that very fact) on appearance before the court,” Lalit told the Court.
All the five were issued summons by the Court, specially designated to try 2G case, after the CBI filed a chargesheet in the case on April 2 naming them as accused along with former Telecom minister A Raja and others.
Any person summoned as an accused in a case has to seek bail on his or her appearance in the court otherwise he or she may be arrested.
Three senior advocates Mukul Rohtagi, KTS Tulsi and Ranjit Kumar, on the other hand, countered submission of Lalit saying that it was for the investigating agency to justify its stand as to why it wanted to arrest the accused now as they remained out during the investigation.
In order to support his arguments, Lalit, however, submitted a bunch of documents to the Judge and also referred to the political perception of threat to 180 witnesses in the case.
Rohtagi, who appeared for Goenka of Swan Telecom, suspected front company of Reliance ADAG, submitted that there was no precedent where the accused, who was not arrested during the probe, was denied bail. “The chargesheet has already been filed, cognisance taken. If an accused is not arrested during the investigation, then there is no question of his arrest subsequently,” he said.
"What is the apprehension of CBI ? I have appeared before it during the investigation and now I am before the court and there is no precedent that the accused is denied bail after being summoned in such a case," he said.Rohtagi also submitted that the prosecutor was arguing as if the case was something very heinous while the maximum punishment in the alleged offences entailed only seven years jail term.
Senior advocate Tulsi, appearing for MD of Unitech Ltd. Chandra, submitted that when a person was not required for custodial interrogation he could not be arrested at the time of his appearance before the court. The defence counsel also submitted that they were ready to comply with any condition imposed by the court for the bail. The court, however, allowed Lalit two days time to file reply on behalf of the CBI to the applications filed by the accused.