ATUL PRAKASH NIGAM Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application was heard on 24.7.2015 and the background and the brief facts together with the contentions of the learned Counsel were noted in the order passed on that date, which is extracted here under:-

(2.) Thereafter, Sri Jafri, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., invited the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit as also the information received to contend that the applicant's involvement is clearly writ large as he had negotiated the tenders and it was he, who had executed the work on behalf of M/s Jain Video on Wheels Company to obtain the contract in favour of the company of which he is admittedly a Vice-President. The mere receipt of salary as a Vice President does not alter his status as alleged.

(3.) Sri Dilip Kumar, advancing his submissions, has urged that the applicant has through out cooperated with the investigation and in the absence of any financial loss as alleged, there is no occasion for this applicant to make any offer for any deposit as has been done by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Awasthi's case in the order dated 14.7.2015. Sri Dilip Kumar has vehemently urged that as a matter of fact there is no liability existing, and even if it is so, then it is either Mr. Ankur Jain who has already been granted bail by this Court or it is Shalini Dhanda, who has been allowed to appear through Counsel before the the court below. Thus, it is only the applicant who is behind bars and who has not committed any such offence nor there is any material against him so as to warrant his further detention.