Follow Us:
Monday, July 16, 2018

AgustaWestland case: Court to pronounce order on SP Tyagi’s bail plea on Dec 26

Opposing CBI's contention, S P Tyagi's advocate Maneka Guruswamy said his client "could not be deprived from freedom if the investigation is taking time to complete".

By: PTI | New Delhi | Published: December 23, 2016 7:52:46 pm
agustawestland, agustawestland case, agustawestland scam, SP tyagi, SP tyagi bail plea, agustawestland investigation, sp tyagi, s p tyagi hearing, s p tyagi punhsment, s p tyagi court verdict, former air force chief, air force chief, india news Former Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi (PTI)

A special court on Friday decided to pronounce its order next week on the bail plea of former IAF chief S P Tyagi and two others, arrested in AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam case, after hearing arguments of the CBI and the accused on the issue. Special CBI Judge Arvind Kumar also reserved its order on the bail applications of Tyagi’s cousin Sanjeev Tyagi and lawyer Gautam Khaitan and posted the matter for December 26 for pronouncing the order.

During the day’s proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, opposed the bail pleas of the accused, saying if set free, they might influence witnesses and hamper the “multi-layered probe by various agencies in more than one jurisdictions involving several countries”.

“The persons are of high ranking… The investigation is going on and we are getting support from other countries. If they get bail, they may influence witnesses, destroy evidences and hamper the ongoing probe which is at a very crucial stage.

“We have evidences where the meetings unofficially took place for the purpose of crime. At this stage, please do not entertain their bail pleas. Let the probe be completed,” he said, seeking dismissal of the bail pleas of all three accused and adding that the matter has “tarnished country’s name.”

However, the CBI also told the court that “it is not our argument that the accused may flee from justice.”

On the court’s query whether the CBI had any material regarding S P Tyagi receiving money, the agency said the former IAF chief had purchased several properties for which the sources of income were not disclosed by him and alleged that he had abused his official position.

Opposing CBI’s contention, S P Tyagi’s advocate Maneka Guruswamy said his client “could not be deprived from freedom if the investigation is taking time to complete”.

She claimed before the court that in the last four years since the FIR was registered, the CBI has never been able to confront Tyagi with any incriminating evidence till date.

“Even today, the CBI has not demonstrated anything more than a statement that my client recieved some cash. He is already retired and not going to influence the probe today and there is no evidence to suggest that he tried to do so in the past,” the counsel said.

Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, appearing for Khaitan, also countered CBI’s argument, claiming that the agency was trying to sensitise the matter and there was no allegation that his client had not joined the probe or tried to influence it.

Dubey told the court that “if they had to hamper probe, they would have done it in the past three years.”

Sanjeev Tyagi’s counsel Manav Gupta also opposed CBI’s contention saying there was no reason to claim that if granted the relief, his client would hamper the probe.

The accused persons have sought bail on the ground that the evidence was documentary in nature and has already been seized by CBI and they have cooperated with the probe agency.

The court had on December 17 sent all the three accused to the judicial custody till December 30.

71-year old Tyagi, who had retired in 2007, his cousin Sanjeev and Khaitan were arrested on December 9 by the agency in connection with the case. The case relates to procurement of 12 VVIP choppers from UK-based firm during the UPA-2 regime.

The accused have alleged that the “CBI was trying to extract the confession using force”. The defence counsel had also claimed that there was no apprehension of them fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The CBI had said it was a “very serious” and “a very high-profile” case requiring interrogation to unearth larger conspiracy as the “interest of the nation was compromised”. It had submitted that “one part of the crime was committed in India while various other angles are in foreign land.”

Tyagi’s counsel had earlier claimed that the decision to procure VVIP choppers from AgustaWestland was a “collective” one and Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was also a part of it.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App