30 likes | 163 Views
Suspended IAS officer B.P. Acharya on Friday advanced an argument in court seeking bail as the three-month time limit set by the High Court for the CBI to complete the investigation against him in the Emaar township scam ended on August 23. Moreover, the ‘mastermind’ of the scam, by the CBI’s own admission – Koneru Prasad – was recently given bail by the High Court, Acharya’s counsel V. Surender Rao informed the court. This is the third bail application by Acharya since his arrest on January 30. Mr. Rao said the arrest of his client itself was malafide as a voluminous charge-sheet in the case was filed by the CBI within two days of picking him up. “The charge-sheet could not have been written in those two days when he was in the custody of CBI.” Approval not sought Moreover, the CBI did not seek approval of the Central government in investigating charges against him as required by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act which was enacted for the purpose of corruption cases. He reminded the court about a judgment of the Supreme Court which said that the trial courts need not consider the danger of accused tampering evidence if they were released after the charge-sheet was filed. No pecuniary advantage The allegations against Acharya were in the nature of omissions and commissions which did not result in any pecuniary advantage to him, he added.
E N D
Suspended IAS officer B.P. Acharya on Friday advanced an argument in court seeking bail as the three-month time limit set by the High Court for the CBI to complete the investigation against him in the Emaar township scam ended on August 23. Moreover, the ‘mastermind’ of the scam, by the CBI’s own admission – Koneru Prasad – was recently given bail by the High Court, Acharya’s counsel V. SurenderRao informed the court. This is the third bail application by Acharya since his arrest on January 30. Mr. Rao said the arrest of his client itself was malafide as a voluminous charge-sheet in the case was filed by the CBI within two days of picking him up. “The charge-sheet could not have been written in those two days when he was in the custody of CBI.”
Approval not sought Moreover, the CBI did not seek approval of the Central government in investigating charges against him as required by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act which was enacted for the purpose of corruption cases. He reminded the court about a judgment of the Supreme Court which said that the trial courts need not consider the danger of accused tampering evidence if they were released after the charge-sheet was filed. No pecuniary advantage The allegations against Acharya were in the nature of omissions and commissions which did not result in any pecuniary advantage to him, he added.