Monday, January 05, 2026 | 12:32 AM ISTहिंदी में पढें
Business Standard
Notification Icon
userprofile IconSearch

Kanimozhi to remain in jail, as hc dismisses bail plea

Image

BS Reporter New Delhi

Sharad Kumar’s bail plea also rejected; Court says the two have strong political connections

The Delhi High Court today rejected the bail pleas of DMK Member of Parliament Kanimozhi and Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar on the grounds that they had strong political connections and would influence witnesses if let free. The two are currently in Tihar Jail for their alleged role in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

“Considering their financial and political clout, a possibility cannot be ruled out that if they are freed at this stage, they would interfere with investigation or try to influence the witnesses. Thus, at this stage, I do not deem it appropriate to admit the petitioners on bail,” Justice Ajit Bharihoke said in his 37-page order.

 

The court noted the CBI allegations that Kanimozhi and Kumar received illegal gratifications in the DMK-run TV channel from co-accused and Swan Telecom promoters, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka, from the account of DB Realty group companies as “reward for undue favours” shown by former communications minister A Raja in allocation of licences for 2G spectrum.

The routing of Rs 200 crore alleged bribe from the DB Group to Kalaignar TV, its shareholding pattern and fabrication of documents to show the money as a valid loan were considered by the Delhi High Court while dismissing the bail applications.

“Kalaignar TV Pvt Ltd is a closely-owned company in which there are three shareholders. Twenty per cent stake each is held by the petitioners (Kanimozhi and Sharad) and the balance 60 per cent stake is held by Dayalu Ammal, step-mother of petitioner Kanimozhi,” the court said.

“Raja had close association with petitioners (Kanimozhi and Sharad) and he helped their company to get registration with Information and Technology Department and also to get included in the bouquet of Sky TV,” it said.

The accused got the bribe from Swan Telecom, owned by the DB Realty Group, which earned illegal profits to the tune of Rs 3,228 crore and Rs 380 crore by offloading its shares to Etisalat Mauritius Ltd and Genex Exim Ventures Pvt Ltd respectively, it said referring to the charge sheet.

The court rejected the pleas of Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar that they were “innocent” as they had no role in the alleged conspiracy relating to allotment of the spectrum to Swan Telecom.

“It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of bail application, the court is required to take prima facie view of the evidence collected during investigation and it is not supposed to undertake an intricate exercise of scrutinising evidence with a view to find out its truthfulness or otherwise,” the order said.

The court, however, considered the money trail from DB Group companies to Kalaignar and reverse bribe trail to firms promoted by Shahid Balwa after Raja was summoned in the case by the CBI in December last year.

“The proximity of dates on which the money got transferred via circuitous route involving co-accused Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka’s DB Realty Group Companies, Asif Balwa’s Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt Ltd and Karim Morani’s Cineyug Films Pvt Ltd and also the reverse trail of money, prima facie, cannot be a coincidence.

“This gives rise to a prima facie involvement that the aforesaid methodology was adopted by all the accused with a view to conceal the money trail from the DB Realty Group which owns Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd and Unitech Group of Companies in the matter of grant of UAS licences and spectrum have caused a loss of about Rs 30,000 crores to the exchequer,” it said.

The court also rejected the legal plea that they should have been granted bail by the lower court as they were not arrested during the probe and moreover, only summons were issued against them.

“Just because the court, taking cognisance of a warrant trial case, has opted to issue summons for appearance instead of warrants, it cannot be assumed that he had applied its mind to the facts of the case from the point of view of grant or refusal of bail to the accused,” the court said.

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Jun 09 2011 | 12:28 AM IST

Explore News