Digital evidence does not connect Satyendar Jain to kickbacks; ACB rushed to arrest him: Delhi court

A Delhi court on Thursday observed that the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) “rushed” to arrest Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) corruption case relating to tendering process for sewage treatment plants (STP).

While granting bail to the former Delhi minister, Special Judge (PC Act) Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court returned a prima facie finding that none of the WhatsApp chats flagged by ACB implicated Jain and there were no phone records or SMS messages connecting Jain to the kickbacks or hawala transactions involving the other co-accused.

The Court also noted it was an admitted fact that the contracts were awarded in July 2022, after Jain had already been arrested in a different case on May 30, 2022, and was in custody at the time (Jain was in custody in relation to a separate money laundering case during the relevant period). 

Further, the judge said that to date, no objection had been received from any quarter regarding the quality of work performed or the treatment standards achieved as regards the STP, with the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) monitoring the STPs' effluent standards regularly without raising concerns.

Thus, the ACB ought to have conducted a thorough investigation or gathered evidence before arresting him. 

Judge Singh said that a few decisions taken by Jain do raise eyebrows, and he may not be innocent. But they are not enough to deny him bail at this stage.

“The investigating agency ought to have first conducted a thorough investigation and gathered more evidence before rushing to arrest him,” the Court said. 

Jain was arrested by the ACB on August 18 in connection with alleged irregularities in the tendering process for sewage treatment plant projects of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB).

He was booked for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case, registered in May 2024 following a complaint by the Directorate of Vigilance, concerns alleged manipulation of tender conditions, criminal conspiracy and suspected bribe payments linked to contracts for upgrading DJB sewage treatment plants.

It is Jain's case that no money trail led to him and that 27-month gap between FIR registration and arrest showed no urgent need for custody.

He added that he had merely approved technical files vetted by senior DJB officials, including the CEO and Chief Engineer.

After considering the case, the Court also flagged the "unexplained and extraordinary delay" of 27 months between the registration of the FIR on May 11, 2024, and Jain's arrest on August 18, 2026. 

The Court held that this gap indicated the investigating agency had not considered his physical custody necessary for over two years. The prosecution failed to point to any new or sudden circumstance that justified the arrest at such a late stage, judge Singh said.

“Not much seems to have been achieved in the investigation during this long period besides collecting replies/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 nvestigation, without strong reasons and without a change in circumstances, tends to invite criticism that it is arbitrary,” the Court observed. 

Senior Advocate N Hariharan along with advocates Vivej Jain, Mohd Irsha and Sadiq Noor appeared for Satyendar Jain.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manish Rawat represented the State.