"It is a historical case in Indian democracy. The accused was a public servant acting as principal secretary and the investigation was fairly conducted. Dignity and purity of public institutions have to be maintained. A pack of lies is being spread in the media that Rajendra Kumar is holding the government like a 'Seshnag' and if he goes, all the (Delhi) government will go," the CBI told the special court.
The court sent Kumar and four others, arrested in an alleged corruption case, to five-day CBI custody, with the agency also claiming that the "influential" IAS officer was intimidating witnesses.
Besides Kumar, the others remanded were Deputy Secretary in Kejriwal's office Tarun Sharma, Kumar's alleged close aide Ashok Kumar and Directors of Endeavour Systems Pvt Ltd (ESPL), Sandeep Kumar and Dinesh Kumar Gupta.
CBI alleged that custodial interrogation of these accused was needed as some incriminating recoveries were likely to be made and during the ongoing probe, a lot of incriminating evidence have been recovered which showed that "undue advantage" was given to ESPL in awarding contracts.
CBI alleged that Kumar was an "influential and highly
placed bureaucrat. We cannot have a fair investigation without arresting him as he was intimidating the witnesses. CBI has tried to investigate the case with sincere efforts. There was continuous intimidation to the witnesses and a fair probe was not possible."
It said that interrogation was needed to unearth larger conspiracy, role of the accused and to know the exact chain of events and though they have joined the probe, they have not cooperated.
He said that all allegations levelled against Kumar were "false" and his name was "roped in" in the case deliberetly.
He also claimed that Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd (ICSIL) officials, whose names were mentioned in the CBI FIR, have not been "touched" in the case by the agency as ICSIL was a central government enterprise.
He also denied CBI allegations that ESPL was brought into existence by Kumar and said it was ICSIL which had awarded contracts to it.
"ICSIL people are favourable to the government, so they have not been touched. On the intimidation issue, I would say that if I have intimidated anyone, why the CBI did not ask me about it? There is no allegation against me that I caused wrongful loss to anybody," he said.
"What is cooperation which CBI is saying? Accused has a right to keep silent. If he does not speak, you can't arrest him. My client was confronted with others during questioning. They (CBI) are supposed to tell the court why they have arrested my client," he said.
"They are alleging that Rajendra Kumar was intimidating the witnesses. Then why is police custody of other accused required? They have recorded statement of witnesses under section 164 of CrPC because they (CBI) want to intimidate the witnesses," Gupta said.
Sharma also claimed that one of his clients, Dinesh Gupta, was "mercilessly beaten" by the CBI during questioning due to which he is unable to hear from one of his ears.
He alleged that CBI cannot play "hide and seek" with the court and have to specify why they have arrested the accused.
While seeking custody, CBI told the court that there was a nexus among the arrested accused and Kumar was well- acquainted with them and they had conspired to award contract to ESPL without any tendering process.
As soon as the hearing commenced, the judge asked the CBI, "What was the necessity of arresting them." In response, the agency said "Yes, it is there in the case diary."
CBI counsel Sonia Mathur said some evidence has surfaced which may lead to offences of forgery and cheating. There were audio clips and e-mails which showed that Rajendra Kumar was in touch with other accused, she added.
At the fag end of the hearing, accused Dinesh told the judge, "I am being pressurised to become an approver and I have been threatened by CBI."
Kumar, a 1989 IAS officer of UT cadre, was called along with Tarun Sharma besides three other private persons for questioning at the CBI headquarters yesterday.
The CBI had registered a case against Kumar and others in December last year alleging that the officer had abused his official position by "favouring a particular firm in the last few years in getting tenders of Delhi government departments".
The charges pressed by the CBI are under sections 120-B of IPC (criminal conspiracy), and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to criminal misconduct for allegedly favouring a private company --Endeavour Systems Pvt Ltd-- in bagging five contracts.
This is the same case in which CBI had come under scathing criticism from court which directed it to return the documents sought by the Delhi government seized during December 15, 2015 raids on Kejriwal's office.