New Delhi [India], August 21 (ANI): Former Delhi Jal Board (DJB) CEO Udit Prakash Rai has claimed that his arrest by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) is illegal, as it is in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case, which say that arrest is not necessary where punishment is less than 7 years.
Rai, now a secretary in Mizoram Government, has been arrested by ACB in connection with a case alleging corruption in tendering. He was remanded in judicial custody on August 19 alongwith former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain till September 3.
His bail plea was adjourned on Thursday due to the non-availability of a senior counsel who will argue for him, and the matter has been listed on August 25.
Rai is a Senior IAS officer, and exceeding the 48-hour custodial period will lead to his Automatic Suspension.
It is stated that he has been illegally arrested by the investigating agency in the present case, in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
It is contended that the FIR was registered on May 11, 2024, and no charge sheet has been filed by the ACB even after a period of 2 years. Therefore, Rai's custody is not required for the purposes of the investigation.
Rai's bail plea has mentioned that he fully cooperated with the investigating agency and had joined the investigation on 18.08.2026 pursuant to a notice under Section 41A CrPC dated 07.08.2026.
It is contended that his arrest by the ACB is completely mala fide. He had joined the investigation on 18.08.2026 pursuant to a notice issued to him by the ACB under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 07.08.2026.
His arrest has been termed illegal, saying that he was illegally arrested by the investigating agency in the present case, in violation of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The bail plea also referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. It was held by the Apex Court that in cases where a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS (equivalent of Section 41A CrPC) has been issued, the power to arrest is an exception and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power.
It is also said that in Chanda Kochhar v. CBI, the Bombay High Court held that if arrest is made pursuant to appearance of accused under Section 41A CrPC notice, then the investigating agency has to show new material due to which decision of arrest was taken. In the present case, the ACB has failed to show any new material on the basis of which the decision of arrest has been taken, rendering the arrest illegal.
It is also said that the grounds of arrest of 18.08.2026 provided by the prosecuting agency are defective in nature and do not comply with the relevant provisions and judgments of the Hon'ble Courts. Further, such grounds of arrest dated 18.08.2026 only provide 'reasons of arrest' and do not actually provide grounds of arrest.
As per the Prosecution, the FIR in the present case was registered on 11 May 2024 by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) under Sections 7A,9,13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act & 420,409,418,120B IPC against M/s Euroteck Environmental Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ayyappa Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., M/s Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s GSJ Envo Limited, M/s Subhash Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Dineshchandra R Aggarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., and other unknown government officials, public servants, and private persons. The said FIR was registered in relation to allegations pertaining to the award of contracts for the upgradation/augmentation of 10 Sewage Treatment Plants of the Delhi Jal Board. (ANI)
DJB STP Tender scam case: Arrest illegal as it is in violation of Apex court guidelines, says former Jal Board CEO
