A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to former minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain over the alleged Delhi Jal Board (DJB) Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) tender scam. A Rouse Avenue Court ordered Jain to provide a personal bail bond of Rs. 2 lakh and two sureties.
Jain had been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for allegations related to the tender process for sewage treatment plant projects under the Delhi Jal Board. His bail plea was heard by Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, who had reserved the matter after hearing arguments from the defence and prosecution on August 25.
The case has attracted much political and legal attention because of the allegations involving a former Delhi minister and the Delhi government’s infrastructure projects. Jain and five other accused persons had been arrested in the alleged case and were in judicial custody until September 3.
During the bail hearing, senior advocate N Hariharan, as well as Advocate Vivek Jain, appeared for Jain and claimed that there was no necessity for his arrest. Jain was arrested around 27 months after the FIR was registered in May 2024, the defence said.
DJB STP Tender scam case | Rouse Avenue court granted bail to Former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain. He was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in the DJB STP Tender scam Case. He has been granted bail on a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakh and 2 sureties bond in the like amount. https://t.co/oVtsJhw8Id
— ANI (@ANI) September 3, 2026
According to the defence, Jain had cooperated with the investigation and there was no reason to believe that he would escape legal proceedings. He was not a flight risk and that his stay could be maintained under suitable circumstances imposed by the court, the lawyers said.
Defence Questions Need for Arrest
Jain's legal team argued that the case was a matter of government policy and technical advice. The defence also cited the proposed expansion stage of Rohini Sewage Treatment Plant from 15 million gallons per day (MGD) to 25 MGD but the project's peak capacity was 30 MGD.
The defence said that decisions on such projects were made based on recommendations and policy advice. It said courts should not be involved in policy decisions.
The lawyers also questioned the basis of the case, and contended that the ACB had registered the FIR based on information received from the Enforcement Directorate (ED). There was no connection between alleged proceeds of crime and Jain in the related money laundering case, the defence said.
The defence also made the case that the investigation could not be described as being at an initial stage because it had been ongoing since May 2024. It also claimed that several pieces of evidence relied upon by the ACB had been obtained from the ED.
ACB Opposes Bail Plea
The ACB opposed Jain’s bail application. Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat argued that the investigation was still at an important stage and Jain had not been fully cooperative with investigators.
The prosecution said there is evidence against Jain during the investigation. The ACB has claimed there may be technical issues with the technical proposal and tender process for sewage treatment plants.
According to the agency, the technical proposal for Rohini STP was for increasing its capacity from 15 MGD to 25 MGD. However, the ACB claims that the capacity was later increased to 30 MGD without a technical recommendation or feasibility study.
The agency also claimed that the inclusion of the Rohini and Narela STPs and absence of Okhla Phase-V STP led to an estimated cost escalation of around Rs 123 crore. The ACB described these decisions as arbitrary and claimed they lacked technical justification.
Allegations of Tender Manipulation
The ACB has also claimed that the specifications in the tender procedure were manipulated to favour M/s Eurotech. According to the agency, changes in the tender conditions led to the company being the sole technology supplier of IFAS Technology with Fixed Media for the project.
Investigators had also come to know of the links between Rajkumar Kurra, Nagendra Yadav and some Delhi Jal Board officials. The ACB claims that the alleged manipulation of tender conditions was aimed at providing undue benefits to the company.
The agency has alleged that Jain’s role and alleged connivance emerged during the investigation. These are allegations that are subject to the ongoing legal process and have not been established by a final court verdict.
The investigation has also been into alleged financial transactions. The ACB has alleged that Vinod Chauhan acted as a middleman in facilitating tender-related work for a particular technology provider in exchange for funds.
The agency said money was sent through M/s Srijanhar Enterprises, a proprietorship firm owned by Pankaj Verma who is said to be Chauhan's nephew. The ACB has alleged that Chauhan received Rs 81 lakh from M/s Dhanvine Engineering, which is a kickback linked to M/s Eurotech.
The agency also alleges Eurotech entered into the agreement with Srijanhar Enterprises as an authorised marketing agent in December 2021. The company received a commission from the DJB through the payment of tender works, they said.
Investigators have claimed that the firm did not perform work corresponding to the agreement and that the arrangement was created to enable the transfer of commissions or bribes. Such allegations are currently under investigation and are subject to courts’ scrutiny.
The ACB also mentioned an alleged analysis of a mobile phone of Nagendra Yadav. According to the agency, information of a hawala operator was shared through WhatsApp messages and it was forwarded.
The Rouse Avenue Court's decision to grant bail gives Jain relief in the case, although the investigation and legal proceedings will continue. The bail order does not amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations.
As the case goes on, investigators are likely to keep looking into the alleged tender irregularities, technical decisions and financial transactions. These proceedings are likely to be closely monitored because of the political status of the accused and also the larger allegations about public infrastructure contracts in Delhi.
