2G Scam: Vinod Goenka, Sanjay Chandra and Reliance ADAG officials sent to Tihar Jail
merisarkar news service April 20, New Delhi
5 co-accused sent to jail
Five corporate honchos, including Unitech's Sanjay Chandra and Reliance ADAG's Gautam Doshi were arrested and sent to jail after a Delhi court dismissed their bail plea saying they may tamper with evidence and even flee to avoid prosecution in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.
However, hours after special CBI Judge OP Saini accepted CBI's plea that they can also influence the witnesses, they challenged the rejection of bail in the Delhi High Court which is likely to hear them tomorrow.
The decision to move the High Court assumes significance as the Supreme Court, which is monitoring the progress of the case, had made it clear that no other court in the country will entertain any application or petition relating to the 2G case other than the apex court.
Besides Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd Managing Director Sanjay Chandra and Group MD of Reliance ADAG Gautam Doshi, the court also rejected the bail plea of co-promoter of Swan Telecom Vinod Goenka and Reliance ADAG's Surender Pipara and Hari Nair.
"A bare perusal of the facts of the case and the allegations in the chargesheet make it out a case of the highest magnitude and gravity and there is enough incriminating material on record against the accused."
The court also dealt with the arguments of defence lawyers that they be granted bail "ipso facto" (by default) as they were not arrested during the probe.
"I am satisfied that in a case of this magnitude, non-arrest of the accused by the police (CBI) is of no consequence and bail is to be considered as per the facts and circumstances of the case," the special judge, appointed exclusively to deal with the 2G case, said.
"In such cases, the non-arrest of the accused by the police/CBI and issuance of the summons by the court for their appearance are not of much consequence," Special CBI Judge O P Saini, in his 42-page order, said.
The court concurred with CBI's apprehension that the accused may tamper with the evidence "by trying to win over witnesses and they may also flee from justice in view of the magnitude of the offence."
"These apprehensions cannot be dismissed as too far-fetched at this stage in the light of the serious nature of the case..., In my considered opinion, it is not a fit case for bail," it said.
