- A Delhi Court remanded Satyendar Jain to judicial custody in the corruption case related to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Jal Board.
- Special PC judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order after the accused were presented in the court.
- The judge rejected Jain's application seeking to declare his arrest as illegal.
- The case was registered in 2024 on the complaint of Delhi Government's Directorate of Vigilance, alleging large-scale irregularities in the tendering process.
- The FIR was registered under Sections 7, 7A, 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 409, 418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- It was alleged that the tendering process involved restrictive technical specifications favoring M/s Euroteck Environment Pvt. Ltd, thereby restricting competition.
A Delhi court has remanded Satyendar Jain to judicial custody following his arrest by the Anti-Corruption Branch in connection with a corruption case involving the Delhi Jal Board.1
Special PC judge Dig Vinay Singh rejected Jain's plea to declare his arrest illegal, citing irregularities in the tendering process.2
The case, registered in 2024, stems from a complaint by the Directorate of Vigilance, alleging large-scale irregularities and criminal conspiracy in the tendering process for the augmentation and upgradation of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs).45
The FIR includes charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, highlighting that the tendering process favored M/s Euroteck Environment Pvt. Ltd, which restricted competition and provided undue advantage to a selected private entity.7
Jain, a former Minister of Water in the Delhi Government, faces serious allegations as the court proceedings unfold.
“The case against Jain was registered in 2024 by the Delhi Government's Directorate of Vigilance, alleging large-scale irregularities in the tendering process. The FIR includes serious charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, highlighting concerns over favoritism towards M/s Euroteck Environment Pvt. Ltd.”
livelaw.in
