The Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday admitted in the Supreme Court that it made a “concession” for granting bail to DMK MP Kanimozhi and four others in the 2G scam case by not opposing it before the trial court, which is expected to give its verdict on November 3.
However, the CBI made a categorical statement before a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu that the “concession” was given only to the five accused and was not available to “anybody else” facing trial in the case. “During the course of hearing of bail applications of some accused submission was made that this concession is only to five persons, nobody else. It has been left to the discretion of the trial court to take a decision,” additional solicitor-general Haren Raval, appearing for the CBI, said.
After recording the statement to this effect by Mr Raval, the apex court bench reserved its verdict on the bail pleas of five corporate honchos whose counsel had questioned the legality of the “dual stand” of the CBI.
Besides Ms Kanimozhi, the CBI had not opposed the bail pleas of Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar, Kuesegaon Fruits and Vegetables directors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agrawal and Bollywood producer Karim Morani, making a distinction on the basis of the maximum sentence of five years prescribed for the specific charges framed against them, while the other accused whose bail was opposed by the agency faced specific charges carrying a maximum sentence of seven years.
On the basis of this distinction, the CBI counsel in the trial court had challenged the bail pleas of Mr R.K. Chandolia, ex-private secretary to former communications minister A. Raja, and DB Reality’s Shahid Balwa.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the bail petitions of Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra, Vinod Goenka of DB Realty and Mr Hari Nair, Mr Surendra Pipara and Mr Gautam Dosh of Reliance Telecom after recording Mr Rawal’s statement. However, the bench took serious view of “distorted” reports about its query to the CBI about its statement before the trial court on the bail issue and clarified that such media reports would not in any away “affect” the order of the trial judge on the bail applications heard by it.
“In context of contention by Ram Jethmalani (counsel for Mr Sanjay Chandra) that the public prosecutor made a particular statement (not opposing bail of five accused) before the trial court, Raval has clarified the position and we have taken note of it...”
“We express our anguish on the misleading reports appearing in the print media and make it clear that what has been reported will not affect the proceedings of the trial court,” the bench recorded in its order.
The bench had serious objections to the media reports, which made it out as if the top court had questioned CBI on why it had not opposed the bail of Ms Kanimozhi and four others.