A Delhi Court on Wednesday remanded Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain to judicial custody in the corruption case related to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Jal Board.

Special PC judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order after the accused were presented in the court today.

The judge also rejected Jain's application seeking to declare his arrest as illegal.

Jain, former Minister of Water of the earlier Delhi Government of AAP, was arrested yesterday by Delhi Police's Anti-Corruption Branch. The case was registered in 2024.

Other five accused persons arrested are Udit Prakash Rai (IAS) and former CEO, Delhi Jal Board; Ankit Srivastava, former contractual consultant of Delhi Jal Board; Nagendra Yadav, Proprietor M/s AN Enterprises; Raja Kumar Kurra, Owner M/s Euroteck Environement Pvt. Ltd and Pankaj Verma, Proprietor M/s Srijanhar.

The ACB had sought for 14 days of judicial remand for the Jain and four other accused persons- Rai, Yadav and other two companies. For Srivastava, the ACB sought police custody for two days.

Along with Jain, four other accused have also been remanded to judicial custody. Srivastava has been sent to two days of police custody.

Notice has been issued on the bail plea filed by Jain and others. The hearing will take place on August 25.

The FIR was registered under Sections 7, 7A, 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 420, 409, 418 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case was registered on the complaint of Delhi Government's Directorate of Vigilance, alleging large-scale irregularities, manipulation of tender conditions and criminal conspiracy in the tendering process relating to augmentation and upgradation of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB).

It was alleged that the tendering process involved restrictive technical specifications and conditions favouring a particular technology provider- M/s Euroteck Environment Pvt. Ltd, thereby restricting competition and providing undue advantage to a selected private entity.

The ACB has alleged that private persons were allegedly in regular communication with public servants and intermediaries in order to manipulate the tender process.