SC reserves order on bail plea of two in Satyam case

SC reserves order on bail plea of two in Satyam case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order over CBI’s plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Subramani Gopalakrishnan, partner of the global auditing firm PriceWaterhouse (PW) and V S Prabhakar Gupta, internal audit head of the scam-hit IT firm Satyam Computers.

After hearing the arguments of CBI and Gopalakrishnan and Gupta, the bench of justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan reserved its order.

CBI has challenged the bail granted to Gopalakrishnan and Gupta, both accused in the multi crore Satyam scam, by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in June 2010.

On 1 April, admitting the petition of CBI, the apex court had issued notices to Subramani Gopalakrishnan and V S Prabhakar Gupta directing them to file their replies by 13 April.

The apex court had on 26 October 2010 cancelled the bail granted to B Ramalinga Raju, the founding chairman of Satyam Computers (now Mahindra Satyam), and five others.

CBI had submitted that accordingly, bail granted to Gopalakrishnan and Gupta too should be cancelled on the basis of the apex court’s order.

However, it was opposed by the counsel appearing for Gopalakrishnan and Gupta and submitted that the investigating agency has come to the apex court almost ten months after the high court had granted bail to them.

They had further submitted that the SC has already given bail to one of the PWC auditors, Satyam Talluri Srinivas and CBI is seeking to send another auditor Gopalkrishnan behind the bars.

However, it was opposed by CBI, which contended there was a difference in the role of Talluri Srinivas and Gopalkrishnan.

“Talluri was for the period of last one year. He merely followed the principles of Gopalkrishnan. Gopalkrishnan has taken exorbitant fee from the company (Satyam). He even took charges for other services, which we do not. It may be that the money was to help them (Raju) in conspiracy," Additional Solicitor General H P Rawal, appearing for CBI, had said.

The bench had also agreed and said “both (Talluri and Gopalkrishnan) are on different footing. It cannot be a precedent".