What rashtra nirmaan when millions are in locker? Delhi Court while dismissing NHAI official's bail plea

A Delhi Court questioned the “rashtra nirmaan” (nation building) being done by senior public officials having millions of rupees in their lockers, while rejecting the bail plea of a National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) official in a corruption case [CBI v. Akil Ahmed & Ors]..Special Judge Vinod Yadav noted that NHAI’s motto is, “Hum Sadak Ka Nirmaan Hi Nahi Kartey, Rashtra Ka Nirmaan Kartey Hain” (We not only develop roads, but also the nation). In the context, he stated in the order."What kind of “Rashtra Nirmaan” is being done by senior officers like applicant by having millions of rupees in their locker. I really fail to understand this. Corruption erodes trust in government and undermines the social contract. This is cause for concern across the globe, but particularly in contexts of fragility and violence, as corruption fuels and perpetuates the inequalities and discontent that lead to fragility, violent extremism, and conflict. Corruption impedes investment, with consequent effects on growth and jobs.".The judge added that corruption was not only a punishable offence, but also undermined human rights, violating them indirectly, and systematic corruption was a human rights violation that led to systematic economic crime..According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), NHAI official Akil Ahmad was in the habit of seeking illegal gratification from contractors. He allegedly demanded bribes for clearing pending bills and issuing provisional commercial operations date for completed projects.In the present case, it was alleged that he had sought illegal gratification from the general manager of Madhya Pradesh-based M/s Dilip Buildcon Private Limited (DBL) with respect to a project under the “Bangalore-Chennai Expressway Package 1 and 2”, undertaken by the DBL in Karnataka. On the directions of the accused DBL employee, a bribe of ₹20 lakh was to be delivered to the NHAI official in Delhi. Apart from ₹4 lakh being recovered from Ahmad’s premises, the CBI purportedly found ₹50 lakh in cash and 4 kilos of gold, valued at ₹2.20 crore, from his locker..Senior counsel representing Ahmad argued that his arrest by the CBI was without cause and sans due process of law. She argued that the offences invoked in the case entail punishment for a maximum of seven years, and therefore, a notice under Section 41 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should have been placed on record before the arrest.It was argued that the applicant being a regional officer of the NHAI had no discretion to accord any favour to M/s DBL or clear its bills. The project “Bangalore-Chennai Expressway Package 1 & 2” was a newly-started project, approved in March 2021 by a committee comprising six NHAI members, which Ahmad was not a part of.On the recovery of cash and gold, the senior lawyer contended that the same were joint and legitimate earnings, investments and proceeds earned from property sales by Ahmad and his family members..CBI opposed the bail saying that scrutiny of data from the cell phones of the accused, and intercepted calls and interrogation so far had revealed that the applicant had amassed huge movable and immovable assets through bribes..Though conscious of the fact that it was neither a trap case nor one where the applicant was caught red-handed, the Court observed that he was in regular touch with a co-accused, and involved in the finalisation of the tender for the project in question.The Court also considered a WhatsApp made by the applicant to another accused who said “20 lakh mil gaye (received 20 lakh)” to which applicant replied “OK”. "This prima facie gives an indication that some hanky-panky was going on between applicant/A-1 and A8 Anuj Gupta with regard to aforesaid unaccounted cash amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs," the Court recorded.Besides considering the gathered material, the Court felt he did not deserve bail “for non-disclosure of the password of his I-phone; far reaching social-impact of the offence involved in the matter and larger public interest.”.Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and Advocate Ashwath Sitaraman represented the applicant. Public Prosecutor Neetu Singh appeared for the CBI..[Read Order]