Corporate honchos get bail in 2G case

Corporate honchos get bail in 2G case

Corporate honchos get bail in 2G case

In the first bail in the 2G case  in which 14 persons had been arrested between February 2 and May 10, a bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu directed the release of    Reliance Group’s Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and  Hari Nair, Unitech Group MD Sanjay Chandra and Swan Telecom co- promoter Vinod Goenka more than seven months after their arrest.

The prolonged detention of the accused with Raja alone being behind bars for more than 10 months had drawn criticism from jurists, who felt that denial of bail was not proper.

“We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with the economic offences of huge magnitude. We are conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. Hours after the apex court judgment, Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Judge O P Saini ordered their release from Tihar Jail after all the five accused furnished a bond with the two solvent sureties, each of the sum of Rs 5 lakh.

The granting of bail to the five accused has  raised  hopes of nine others, including DMK MP Kanimozhi,  Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar and former telecom minister A Raja.

Kanimozhi on Wednesday moved the High Court for early hearing of her bail application that was due for December 1. The application is likely to be taken up on Thursday.

 Legal experts opined that Kanimozhi, Kumar, Cineyug Films promoter Karim Morani, Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Directors Asif Balwa and Rajeev Aggarwal have   chances of relief as their bail applications were  not even opposed by the CBI even at the trial court.


As a precondition for their bail, the court also directed that the five accused would have to furnish the surety to the satisfaction of the trail court and warned that the CBI could seek modification if the bail is misused.

Justice Dattu also said that  the offence alleged against the appellants “is a serious in terms of alleged huge loss to the state exchequer, that, by itself should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is  no serious contention of the respondent (CBI) that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence.”

Plea before court

The five had plead before the court that the rejection of their bail by the High Court was unfair and that their continued incarceration amounted to a pre-trial punishment, which violated their constitutional right.

Get a round-up of the day's top stories in your inbox

Check out all newsletters

Get a round-up of the day's top stories in your inbox