Click the Play button to listen to article

A Delhi Court on Thursday criticised Delhi's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for the sudden and hurried manner in which it arrested Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain in the corruption case related to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Jal Board.

While granting bail to Jain in the case, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts called the arrest action arbitrary and noted that there is unexplained and extraordinary delay of 27 months between registration of FIR and his arrest.

The Court said that the ACB did not consider his physical custody necessary for over two years and also failed to identify any new or sudden intervening circumstance that warranted his arrest after “such a prolonged gap.”

It observed that not much seems to have been achieved by ACB in the investigation during this long period besides collecting replies or responses and documents.

“When an investigating agency has conducted its investigation for years without arresting an accused, and the accused has joined the investigation process, a sudden arrest at the tail end of the investigation, without strong reasons and without a change in circumstances, tends to invite criticism that it is arbitrary,” the Court said.

Jain, former Minister of Water of the earlier Delhi Government of AAP, was arrested last month by Delhi Police's Anti-Corruption Branch. The case was registered in 2024. He was remanded to judicial custody on August 19.

In a detailed order passed today, the judge said that prima facie, none of the WhatsApp chats linked Jain with other co accused and that there were no other phone call records or SMS that might presently connect him to the kickbacks and hawala transactions with other co-accused persons in the alleged conspiracy.

Further, the Court noted that Jain appeared for the investigation whenever summoned by the ACB on two occasions and has a clean record of appearance in other pending court proceedings.

“He is an ex-MLA, former Cabinet Minister, and a permanent resident of Delhi with deep roots. The prosecution has presented no plausible reasons for arguing that the applicant is a flight risk. His presence can be adequately secured through appropriate, stringent bail conditions,” the Court said.

It also observed that the ACB's decision not to seek his police custody till now, and the request of only judicial custody, demonstrated that there was no active requirement for his custodial interrogation.

The judge also said that though a few decisions taken by Jain did raise eyebrows and he may not be innocent, but that by itself is not enough at this stage to deny bail to him.

The Court observed that the ACB ought to have first conducted a thorough investigation and gathered more evidence before “rushing to arrest him.”

“Though the principle that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should be adopted, which flows from the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, is primarily applied during trial and final adjudication, if the prosecution's case appears weak even at the preliminary stage, the court may lean towards granting bail,” the Court said. 

Tags: