Ex-telecom secy Behura accuses CBI of discriminating among 2G accused

Lekhi made the allegation before Special Judge O P Saini,who later reserved his order on Behura’s bail plea for November 3,when the court is slated to pronounce its order on the seven other accused as well.

CBI has not opposed the bails of Kanimozhi,Kalaignar TV Managing Director Sharad Kumar,filmmaker Karim Morani and Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables directors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal.

CBI,however,had contested the bail pleas of Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa and former Telecom Minister A Raja’s erstwhile Private Secretary R K Chandolia,saying the specific charges framed against them carry up to seven years in jail.

“It is a colourable exercise of power. If the prosecution has conceded bail to Kanimozhi and (four) others,then all accused should be treated equally. Law makes no distinction among the accused,” Lekhi contended in the court arguing for

bail to Behura.

“On what basis they (CBI) are distinguishing it? The Supreme Court has rightly asked,to the CBI,to explain on what basis they are doing so (discriminating),” he said.

Lekhi accused the CBI of “holding the brief” for some of the accused and not opposing their bail pleas. “It is strange the prosecutor is holding the brief

for some of the accused. I am amazed the public prosecutor comes to court and pleads for those (accused) who have allegedly received bribe,” he said.

Denying Lekhi’s allegations,Special Public Prosecutor U U Lalit asserted,“I do not hold brief for anyone. I stand here as PP purely in the capacity of an impartial observer to place facts before the court.”

“I felt that a distinction could be made. There is nothing that I am holding the brief for accused or the CBI has some agenda,” Lalit added.

He said the change in circumstances after framing of charges against Behura is detrimental to him as earlier the chargesheet indicted him with charges punishable up to seven years of jail term whereas now he is charged under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of IPC,carrying life term on conviction.

Lalit said the CBI had not opposed the bail pleas of five accused as the charges against them carried maximum jail term of five years,while the CBI was opposing the bail pleas of those who may be jailed for seven years or more if held guilty.

The court had on October 22 charged 17 accused including former Telecom Minister A Raja,his erstwhile Private Secretary Chandolia and Behura with offences of hatching conspiracy with others to allocate the spectrum illegally to telecom firms,Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd,causing wrongful gain to them,while committing breach of trust and abusing their offices.

Seeking bail for Behura,his counsel Lekhi argued the CBI must not discriminate among accused on the issue of bail to them as it is not their case that grant of bail to one will derail the investigation,but not affect it if another is granted bail.

“You cannot keep a person in indefinite custody. If the release of more powerful accused would not hamper the probe,how would the release of a retired IAS officer imperil it?” he questioned.

Making mincemeat of the CBI’s argument that Behura should be denied bail as he is an “influential person”,Lekhi pointed out that among the accused,whose bail plea is being endorsed by the agency,one is a sitting MP of a party supporting the government,another is a Bollywood filmmaker and others are corporate honchos.

“How is Behura more influential of the lot as there are persons who have hold in the government? Look at the list of the accused and see who are more influential of the lot. Mere apprehension is no ground to reject the bail… He (Behura) cannot be made an scapegoat,” Lekhi contended.

Mocking at the CBI argument that Behura should be denied bail as he has been charged for graver offence,punishable with life imprisonment,Lekhi said even other accused have been charged with the conspiring to commit the same offence. “This is a patently illegal submission by the prosecution,” he said.

Lekhi alleged that the CBI was not acting as per law and it seemed “someone is guiding the prosecution”.

Accusing the CBI of favouring some of the accused who had allegedly received money,Lekhi said his client had not been charged with receiving illegal gratification as was the case with some others.

Public prosecutor Lalit,however,countered Lekhi’s allegations saying one should not keep on equating one accused with others.

“At this juncture,while considering the bail,it is worthwhile to have distinction on account of charges levelled against certain accused,” he said.

He clarified that his submission are not binding on the court saying,“Whatever I submit as public prosecutor is my viewpoint and that is not binding on the court.”

Lekhi wondered in a Delhi court if CBI has realised late that DMK MP Kanimozhi is a woman and deserves bail.

Lekhi took the dig at CBI while recalling that barely six months ago when Kanimozhi had sought bail on the ground of being a woman,the agency had opposed it tooth and nail,but it is now recommending it to her.

“CBI now says they feel bail should be granted to some of the accused. Why is it so? They say now Kanimozhi is a woman. She was a woman even six months back!” quipped Lekhi.

Lekhi scoffed at CBI’s willingness to allow bail to Cineyug Films Pvt Ltd Director Karim Morani on the ground of his ill-health,saying he was ill even earlier.

“Is it some game we are playing? We are dealing with a serious legal matter. We cannot be casual,” he said.

Pointing out that the various accused faced charges of hatching conspiracy,Lekhi asked how can CBI not oppose bail of some of the conspirators.

“The prosecution says they would not oppose the bail plea of some of the conspirators. Those who are similarly situated should be treated equally,” he said.

He said CBI is favouring the accused,who have allegedly garnered Rs 200 crore as illegal gratification.