A Delhi Courtroom on Wednesday remanded Aam Aadmi Social gathering chief Satyendar Jain to judicial custody within the corruption case associated to the alleged irregularities within the Delhi Jal Board.
Particular PC choose Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts handed the order after the accused have been offered within the court docket at this time.
The choose additionally rejected Jain’s utility in search of to declare his arrest as unlawful.
Jain, former Minister of Water of the sooner Delhi Authorities of AAP, was arrested yesterday by Delhi Police’s Anti-Corruption Department. The case was registered in 2024.
Different 5 accused individuals arrested are Udit Prakash Rai (IAS) and former CEO, Delhi Jal Board; Ankit Srivastava, former contractual advisor of Delhi Jal Board; Nagendra Yadav, Proprietor M/s AN Enterprises; Raja Kumar Kurra, Proprietor M/s Euroteck Environement Pvt. Ltd and Pankaj Verma, Proprietor M/s Srijanhar.
The ACB had hunted for 14 days of judicial remand for the Jain and 4 different accused persons- Rai, Yadav and different two firms. For Srivastava, the ACB sought police custody for 2 days.
Together with Jain, 4 different accused have additionally been remanded to judicial custody. Srivastava has been despatched to 2 days of police custody.
Discover has been issued on the bail plea filed by Jain and others. The listening to will happen on August 25.
The FIR was registered underneath Sections 7, 7A, 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, learn with Sections 420, 409, 418 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case was registered on the criticism of Delhi Authorities’s Directorate of Vigilance, alleging large-scale irregularities, manipulation of tender circumstances and legal conspiracy within the tendering course of regarding augmentation and upgradation of Sewage Therapy Vegetation (STPs) of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB).
It was alleged that the tendering course of concerned restrictive technical specs and circumstances favouring a selected know-how provider- M/s Euroteck Surroundings Pvt. Ltd, thereby limiting competitors and offering undue benefit to a specific non-public entity.
The ACB has alleged that personal individuals have been allegedly in common communication with public servants and intermediaries with the intention to manipulate the tender course of.
