Senior IAS officer B.P. Acharya was released from Chanchalguda prison on Friday evening after the CBI court granted him bail as sanction for his prosecution couldn't be obtained from the government.
Earlier, the court dismissed Central Bureau Investigation’s petition to suspend implementation of the bail for four days. While getting into his vehicle along with his wife Ranjeev Acharya and counsel Venkatesw-arlu, the senior IAS officer repeatedly said “Satyameva Jayate” indicating that he is innocent.
Earlier, the judge told Mr Acharya that the chargesheet in Emaar-APIIC township case was taken on file and he was being granted bail as the court hadn’t taken cognisance of the offence alleged against him for want of sanction orders as mandated by the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
With Mr Acharya getting bail, the CBI has a tough task ahead in the Emaar case after its failure to counter the bail of IAS official B.P. Acharya. CBI has to now complete the probe in Emaar case quickly to file a supplementary chargesheet and to prevent the other accu-sed getting out on bail.
The investigating body had failed to get permission for prosecution from the centre or the state against Mr Acharya. “It was mentioned in the chargesheet that inv-estigation against Sunil and G. Vijay Raghav is still pending and supplementary chargesheet will be filed against them. B.P. Acharya (A1), L.V. Subrahmanyam (A11) and K.V. Rao (A12) are public servants. No sanction is required for K.V. Rao. So far no sanction has been obtained for A1 and A11 and filed in court,” the judge observed in his orders.
Earlier, the CBI Special Court, while denying bail to Vijay Raghav, the finance head of Emaar MGF observed, “The investigating agency is coming up with a clear case after examining several witnesses who pointed out the alleged receipt of excess amounts than the document priced by Vijay Raghav and others… The petitioner can not be released at this point of time… At this point of time it can be said that in case the investigation is not completed even after a considerable period, then it would give an opportunity for the petitioner to revive his application in the changed circumstances.”