Reply to bail plea, court to CBI

Reply to bail plea, court to CBI

The special court has posted both petitions for CBI custody and the bail petition of the accused on the same day. Janardhana and his associate were taken into custody by the CBI on Monday morning and later produced before the CBI special court  which remanded them to 14 days’ judicial custody. The CBI has accused the two of allegedly using the Obulapuram Mining Company  (OMC) mining stockyard in Andhra Pradesh  to store and transport illegally procured iron ore which was mined elsewhere.

Janardhana’s counsel Uday Lalit argued that there was no need for his client to undergo police custody as the CBI has “not produced any concrete evidence.” He said if a corporate entity commits any unlawful act then only the person representing the corporate house can be prosecuted. He argued that Janardhana was not involved in managing the daily affairs of OMC and hence his arrest “illegal.”  

However, CBI judge Naga Maruti Sarma stated that there were numerous allegations under various statutes against his client.

CBI counsel T Venkat Raman argued that it was the discretion of the court whether or not  to send an individual to judicial custody. “The CBI has conducted extensive investigation since 2009 and have collected concrete evidence against the accused which will be produced before the court at appropriate time,” he said .

The CBI told the court in its petition that it wants to question the accused to know the  details of where illegal mining activity took place, where the iron ore was transported, sold or exported and where the illegally acquired money from such exports were kept.

The magistrate then asked the CBI to file a counter affidavit by Thursday morning.
The court also posted for hearing the two separate bail petitions filed by Janardhana and his brother-in-law to Thursday. B V Srinivas Reddy pleaded he has no role in the day to day working of the company and pointed out that the CBI has no jurisdiction over the issues related mines and mining.

Counsels for the accused  pointed out that mining activity was carried out only after taking permission and paying the stipulated fee to the mining department.