A day before he was to appear before the CBI in Delhi in connection with the illegal telephone exchange case, the former Telecom Minister, Dayanidhi Maran, obtained anticipatory bail from the Madras High Court and eventually surrendered before a CBI court here on Tuesday.
He surrendered before IX Additional Judge, G. Saravanan (Special Court of CBI cases), and submitted sureties after getting anticipatory bail from Justice R. Subbiah of the High Court.
In his anticipatory bail petition, Mr. Maran submitted that he was apprehending arrest by the CBI for alleged offences under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to the prosecution, Mr. Maran abused his official position, gave instructions to senior BSNL officials and took 323 phone connections, four leased circuit and 19 post-paid mobile connections as service connections — all installed in his residence in Chennai and thereby caused BSNL a loss of Rs. 1,20,87,769.
Terming the allegations “false, baseless and motivated out of a criminal conspiracy by certain vested interests against the petitioner for malafide reasons,” he recalled having appeared before CBI officials and co-operated during the interrogation in January and October last.
Though the FIR was registered in 2011, no charge sheet was filed for want of material evidence, he said.
Case used as a weapon: Maran
The former Telecom Minister, Dayanidhi Maran, who was granted anticipatory bail by the Madras High Court on Tuesday in the illegal telephone exchange case, said in his petition that the the case was “used as a weapon” against him as and when the need arose for “certain ulterior reasons.” Mr. Maran said he was summoned to appear before the CBI on July 1 in Delhi for interrogation. The summons was not legally sustainable and was issued with the aim of arresting the petitioner, and the threat was “imminent.”
He said he was apprehending arrest, because on earlier occasions three persons were arrested in the case more than eight years after the alleged offence, more than four years after a preliminary enquiry was registered and two years after the FIR was filed.
Giving an undertaking that he would not tamper with any witness, Mr. Maran said the question of tampering with witnesses would not arise since more than 60 were examined and the alleged offence related to the years 2004-07.
