The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has scrutinized the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for its expedited actions in arresting Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain over alleged corruption in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) project. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, presiding over the case, granted bail to the former Delhi minister, noting that digital evidence did not directly link Jain to any illicit activities involving kickbacks or hawala transactions.
On Thursday, the court found that the WhatsApp messages reviewed by the ACB did not implicate Jain, and there were no phone records or SMS communications connecting him to the alleged financial misconduct. Importantly, the contracts for the sewage treatment plants (STP) were awarded in July 2022, a time when Jain was in police custody for a separate money laundering investigation initiated on May 30, 2022.
The court further highlighted that there were no reports of substandard quality or performance issues with the STP work, as the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) consistently monitored and approved the effluent standards. Judge Singh emphasized that the ACB should have conducted a more comprehensive investigation before proceeding with Jain’s arrest, suggesting that while Jain’s decisions might be questionable, they were insufficient grounds to deny bail at this juncture.
Jain was detained by the ACB on August 18 due to alleged irregularities in the DJB’s tendering process, facing charges under both the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The case, registered in May 2024 following a Directorate of Vigilance complaint, involves accusations of tender manipulation, conspiracy, and potential bribe payments linked to STP upgrades.
Jain’s defense argued that no financial trail connected him to the offenses and pointed to the 27-month gap between the FIR registration and his arrest as evidence of an unwarranted detention. He stated that his role was limited to approving technical documents already vetted by senior DJB officials.
The court also criticized the prolonged delay between the FIR registration on May 11, 2024, and Jain’s arrest on August 18, 2026, suggesting this indicated a lack of necessity for his physical custody. Judge Singh noted that the prosecution did not present any new circumstances to justify the late arrest.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan, alongside advocates Vivej Jain, Mohd Irsha, and Sadiq Noor, represented Satyendar Jain, while Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat appeared for the state.
