New Delhi: Former Telecom Secretary Siddhartha Behura, accused in 2G spectrum allocation scam, on Thursday moved a bail application before a Delhi court saying the decisions regarding the changes in policies were taken prior to his joining the Department of Telecommunication.
Behura, in Tihar jail since his arrest on February 2, submitted he had no role in changes in the policies.
Special CBI Judge O P Saini posted Behura's second bail plea for hearing on May 23. Earlier on March 18, the court had rejected his bail plea.
"The pricing policy, change in date as also change in first-come-first-serve (FCFS) policy had already happened before the applicant (Behura) joined and the steps taken thereafter merely entailed implementation of the policy in place and the consequences ensuing therefrom will not render the applicant a conspirator unless it is reasonable to attribute to him involvement in the scheme and policy devised as resulted in the benefit," the application said.
Behura's advocate Meenakashi Lekhi said the decision regarding fixation of entry fee for the UAS licences was taken before he joined as Secretary in DoT.
"The applicant (Behura) therefore cannot be linked to the alleged loss suffered by the government, the basis of which is the issue of fixation of entry fee pricing, decided and communicated in 2007...therefore, the issue of magnitude
of the case and the enormity of alleged loss to government is not relevant as far as the applicant is concerned," the application said.
The application said Behura has "no role to play" in the fixing of the cut-off date for receiving the new applications for UAS licences as the press release in this regard was issued by the Ministry of Communications and IT on September 25, 2007, while he joined the DoT on January 1, 2008.
Regarding the change in the FCFS policy, Behura said it was also made before he joined the ministry.
He said there is no evidence to suggest his involvement in the conspiracy with other accused in the case.
"There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest involvement of the applicant in a conspiracy with the co-accused and the chargesheet merely through an artful arrangement of allegations gives an appearance of coherence where none infact
exists. Moreover, mere evidence of association is not sufficient to lead to an inference of conspiracy," he said.
Comments
0 comment