The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Price Waterhouse auditor Subramani Gopalakrishnan, who was looking after the audit of Satyam Computers Services Limited, and V.S.P. Gupta, internal auditor of the company, as to why their bail granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court should not be cancelled.
A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan issued the notice on appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation that challenged the High Court order granting them bail in the Rs. 14,000 crore Satyam scam.
The Supreme Court, in October 2010, cancelled the bail to B. Ramalinga Raju, B. Rama Raju, V. Srinivas, G. Ramakrishna, Venkatapathi Raju and Ch. Srisailam. Mr. Ramalinga Raju, who was arrested on January 9, 2009, was released on bail on August 18, 2010. The others got bail in July 2010.
In the same month, the Supreme Court directed the Special Court in Hyderabad to complete the trial by July 31, 2011, failing which the accused would be at liberty to approach the High Court for bail.
Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval submitted that the two auditors played a key role in the conspiracy to commit the fraud and that their bail should be cancelled.
However, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and counsel Ramakrishna Reddy, appearing for the two auditors, said that unless there were compelling circumstances, bail once granted should not be cancelled. Since there was no allegation of tampering with evidence or witnesses, the bail should not be cancelled.
Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the trial was in an advanced stage and till March 25, about 170 witnesses were examined/cross-examined and 23 yet to be examined. The prosecution had given up examination of 227 witnesses and hence the trial would be completed by July as directed by the Supreme Court, he said and opposed the cancellation of bail. The Bench, however, issued notice and posted the matter for further hearing to April 13.
Meanwhile, a Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma dismissed petitions filed by Mr. Ramalinga Raju and three others seeking review of its October 26, 2010 order. “We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers. We do not find any ground to review the order. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed,” said the Bench in its order.
