New Delhi [India], February 10 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court on Saturday remanded Delhi Jal Board's retired chief engineer Jagdish Arora and contractor Anil Agarwal to 14 days of judicial custody after interrogation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
This case is related to irregularities in awarding a Delhi Jal Board tender for the supply of electromagnetic flow meters. The accused were arrested on January 31 this year.
Duty Special Judge Nyay Bindu remanded the accused persons to judicial custody for 14 days after hearing submissions of ED's counsel and opposite counsels for accused persons.
The accused persons will be produced before the court on February 24, 2024.
The court has directed the jail authorities to provide proper medical assistance to both accused persons in custody, along with medical examinations.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) produced retired chief engineer Jagdish Arora and contractor Anil Agarwal.
After moving an application, ED's Special Public Prosecutor Manish Jain and Advocate Ishan Baisla prayed to the court to send the accused persons to judicial custody.
The application was opposed by advocate Nagesh Behl, counsel for accused Anil Agarwal.
It is alleged that the accused awarded the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) contract for supply, installation, testing, and commissioning (SITC) of electromagnetic flow meters and corresponding OM 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 the accused received an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 3 crores 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 Screws Industries, the proprietorship firm of Anil Kumar Agarwal.
The counsel for the accused had argued that this tender was awarded at a lesser price. They are misleading the court.
There is no charge sheet in the scheduled offence by the CBI unless they are not in the picture.They should have waited for the charge sheet, counsel argued. (ANI)