STP tender ‘scam’: Five accused get bail after Satyendar Jain

“…at such short notice he cannot be expected to fly to Delhi. In such circumstances, if he sought 10 days’ time to enable him to join the investigation, the claim of non-cooperation is unreasonable,” the court said.

Calling his “sudden arrest” “questionable”, the judge added that “this is not a case” where Rai had refused or avoided joining the investigation.

Questioning the allegation that money transferred through banking channels was a kickback, the court said, “One wonders why a person seeking kickbacks would do so through banking channels. If that amount was a kickback, why would he repay it, that too with interest?”

On the allegation that Rai had not cooperated with the probe, the court said, “Cooperation does not mean an accused dancing to the tunes of an Investigating Officer by offering self-incriminating material on a platter.”

The accused had argued that there was an unexplained 27-month delay in their arrests since the registration of the FIR and that there had been no meaningful progress in the probe before their arrest. They also questioned the need for police custody, saying there was no instance of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The court said that the Directorate of Enforcement has “already investigated the money trail” and in detail and had “not found it necessary to arrest the applicant”.

“Though the DoE case and the predicate case are indeed separate and distinct cases independent of each other, one cannot lose sight of the fact that a person against whom a money trail is claimed has been thoroughly investigated and yet, under more stringent bail provisions, his arrest was not even thought to be necessary, must be kept in jail for the same money trail in the predicate offence,” Judge Singh said.