New Delhi: Suspended IAS officer Ravi Inder Singh, accused of passing official information from Home Ministry to unauthorised persons, on Thursday, sought bail from a Delhi court saying he was innocent and can account for all his assets.
"The movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs 1.92 crore, which are either in the name of the accused or in the name of his wife Amrita Kaur, are all accounted for and the Government of India has duly been intimated about them," Singh's lawyer OP Wadhwa said.
"At best, Singh could be held guilty of negligence for allegedly availing the accommodation provided by Vineet Kumar, CMD of Kolkata-based Temptation Food Pvt Ltd," the defence lawyer told Special Judge Rakesh Siddharth.
The detention of Singh, who has already been quizzed in custody for six days, would not serve any purpose, he said.
The court asked public prosecutor Rajeev Mohan to respond to Singh's bail plea on December 18.
Earlier, the court had sought explanations from police for invoking the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against the accused officer.
In addition to charges under the PC Act, police have also booked Singh under section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using forged documents), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
Singh, the then Director Internal Security in the Home Ministry, along with Kumar who was allegedly acting as a middleman for him, was arrested by Delhi Police's Special Cell on November 23.
The IAS officer allegedly took illegal gratification from co-accused Kumar in the form of his lodging expenses at a guest house here since his deputation to New Delhi from Kolkata in January this year. He also allegedly used a car provided by Kumar.
Kumar was also accused of acting at the behest of a US- based telecom company to procure information relating to some files.
A case was registered under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code dealing with criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence against the duo.
Comments
0 comment