Chandigarh, October 13
After being in custody for almost two months, the CBI Special Court of Jagdeep Jain today granted bail to Sanjiv Bansal, Rajiv Gupta and Prakash Ram in the cash- at-judge’s-doorstep case. The court directed Bansal and Gupta to furnish bail bonds of Rs 2 lakh while Prakash Ram was asked to furnish bail bond of Rs 25,000.

While moving the application seeking bail, Sanjiv Bansal stated that he was supposed to depose before the Supreme Court on the day of incident that is August 13. On reaching Delhi Bansal stated to have a received a call from his friend Ravinder Singh who requested him to meet him. Thereafter, he had gone to meet Ravinder in his hotel in Karol Bagh. Bansal stated in the petition that Ravinder gave him a packet containing Rs 15 lakh and requested him to deliver it to the residence of Justice Nirmal Yadav. He stated to have fixed the meeting with his clients at another hotel after which he left for Chandigarh.

On his way Bansal claimed to have switched off his mobile and on switching it on he received a call from his wife. He maintained that his wife informed him that Ravinder had called her up. Thereafter, he gave a call to Ravinder who told Bansal that Justice Nirmal Yadav had asked him to send the money by 8:30 pm. Bansal stated that he told Ravinder that he would not reach Chandigarh by that time. At this Ravinder requested Bansal to arrange the money locally and deliver the same at the residence of Justice Nirmal Yadav.

The application seeking bail further stated: “In the evening he received a call from his clerk Prakash Ram that he had wrongfully delivered the packet at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur and she has handed it over to the police. Out of utter bonafide, Bansal immediately called up Justice Nirmaljit Kaur on her mobile and told her that his clerk has by mistake reached her house. On this the judge told Bansal that the police would verify the facts and then take appropriate action.”

Making startling revelations in the application, Bansal stated that after having convinced the SHO, Sector 11, he released Prakash Ram, the clerk and asked him to collect the money next morning.

Bansal further stated that the case had been registered against him under Sections 8, 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act but no offence under two Sections is made out.

Opposing the bail, the CBI argued that the investigation of the case was at a crucial stage as the key witness Jai Prakash, another clerk of Sanjeev Bansal, was yet to be examined. The CBI further stated that after the registration of the case, a notice under Section 160 CrPC was issued to Jai Prakash Rana for his presence before the court a number of times but he failed to join the investigation.