The Rouse Avenue Court granted four-day custody of Jagdish Arora and Anil Agarwal to the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This case is related to irregularities in awarding a Delhi Jal Board tender for the supply of electromagnetic flow meters.
Special judge Bhupinder Singh granted custody to ED after hearing the submissions of ED’s counsel and the counsels for the accused persons.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) produced retired chief engineer Jagdish Arora and contractor Anil Agarwal and sought seven days of custody. They were arrested on Wednesday.
It was submitted by the ED’s Special Public Prosecutor, Manish Jain and advocate Ishan Bainsla that the custody of the accused is required to confront them with the digital data recovered during the investigation.
It was also submitted that some other people are being summoned. They need to be confronted with the accused.
It is alleged that the accused awarded the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) contract for supply, Installation, Testing and commissioning (SITC) of electromagnetic flow metres and corresponding O&M operations for five years to M/S NKG Infrastructure Ltd on September 20, 2018 for a total negotiated cost of Rs. 38,02,33,080, despite the fact that the company did not meet the technical criteria.
It is alleged by the ED that accused received an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 3 crore from M/S NKG infrastructure limited and M/S Integral screws Industries and awarded the contract of DJB worth Rs. 38 crores for Supply, Installation, Testing and commissioning (SITC) to M/s NKG infrastructure Ltd. Thereafter, NKG Infrastructure Limited subcontracted the work to M/S Integral Screw Industries, the proprietorship firm of Anil Kumar Agarwal.
Accused Anil Aggarwal was represented by advocate Nagesh Behl.
Counsel for the accused submitted that Alka Arora purchased the flat in 2014 and the contract was awarded in 2018. It was stated that the FIR and ECIR were lodged in 2022 and the bribe was paid in 2023 after retirement. It is very strange. Nothing has been recovered.
The counsel argued that this tender was awarded at a lesser price. They are misleading the court. There is no charge sheet in the schedule offence by the CBI unless they are not in picture.
They should have waited for the charge sheet, counsel argued.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
