news details |
|
|
| SVO dismisses ARI commissioner's bail, orders his custodial interrogation | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 01: Special judge anti-corruption, A K Koul today said there were sufficient reasons to allow the custodial interrogation of ARI and training commissioner Ejaz Iqbal.
He also dismissed his pre-arrest bail application and state vigilance organisation (SVO) to submit the status report which was submitted by SVO SP through CPO.
Ejaz, in his capacity as state financial corporation (SFC) managing director, had in collusion with other accused/beneficiaries breached September 12, 2006, high court order and facilitated the
issuance of auction notice to convey lease hold rights of the land belonging to M/s Anand Bricks Pvt Limited and M/s Jammu Creamics Pvt Ltd at lower cost, causing a huge loss to the state exchequer.
CPO Parshtom Sharma submitted that the petitioner was in complete nexus with the beneficiaries and was privy to the tempering of valuation of report of evaluators. He opposed the grant of bail to
the commissioner and emphasised the need for his custodial interrogation.
Koul said interim bail was given to the petitioner on June 11, 2011, mainly for two reasons. One, that in the earlier report SVO had not been able to make out as to why the petitioner's arrest was
required and second, that the courts were closing for summer vacations.
So to protect the liberty of petitioner during the vacation period, interim bail was granted to him and matter was left to be decided finally after vacation and after perusing the status report of the
investigation.
Now, in view of the facts submitted by the CPO in the status report, the court believed that a case for custodial investigation of the petitioner did exist.The petitioner, during his posting as SFC MD, appeared to have floated the September 12, 2006, high court order under which it was
required that minimum reserve price should be indicated in auction notice but this direction appeared to have been breached without any plausible reason. This was also revealed that one of the beneficiaries was in close association with the family of petitioner and was allegedly acting
under his command.All these reasons were sufficient for the petitioner's custodial interrogation. With these observations, the court dismissed his bail application and directed that the concession of interim bail given to him on June 11, 2011, stood withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
