LIVE TV
India
Recommended Stories
New Delhi: Former Railway Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal's nephew Vijay Singla and six others were today denied bail in the Rs 10 crore cash-for-post railway bribery case by a Delhi court which said that they can tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses, if released on bail.
Besides Singla, Special CBI Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma also dismissed bail pleas of suspended Railway Board Member Mahesh Kumar, MD of Bangalore-based G G Tronics India Pvt Ltd Narayan Rao Manjunath and alleged middleman Sandeep Goyal, saying they were the main players who hatched the conspiracy.
"I have carefully gone through the intercepted conversations between Sandeep Goyal, Manjunath, Vijay Singla and Mahesh Kumar.
"After going through the same, I am of the opinion that a perusal of the conversation between the above mentioned accused persons and their conversation with other co-accused, clearly points out that they are the main players of hatching the conspircay and ensuring that it is executed and taken to its logical end," the court said.
Apart from these four accused, the court rejected bail pleas of Rahul Yadav, Samir Sandhir and Sushil Daga, who all were arrested in May and are in judicial custody till July 19.
Regarding the contentions of the defence counsel that CBI has not named Bansal as an accused, the judge said, "I am of the opinion that the said witness (Bansal) will be examined at the appropriate stage of trial and at this stage, it will be inappropriate to pass any opinion on its evidentiary value.
"If CBI has chosen to make Pawan Kumar Bansal a witness having not found any evidence as yet against him, this court at this juncture there being no evidence against him cannot pass any order or question their decision, as this power can be exercised if at all any evidence against him emerges during the trial," the court said.
It also said that in many conversations, accused Goyal and Manjunath have referred to speaking and meeting Bansal directly though "CBI has not been able to file any evidence regarding the same as to whether it was in fact so."
The court refused to take a lenient view on the accused to send a "strong message" to those who pay bribe for getting their work done.
