The Kerala High Court on Monday asked the State government to file a statement in response to a petition by former Public Works Department Minister and Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader Ibrahim Kunju, now in judicial custody, seeking bail in the Palarivattom flyover corruption case.
When the bail petition was taken up for hearing, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan sought the response of the State government and asked it to file a statement regarding the present stage of the vigilance investigation and the reasons for his continued custody.
State Attorney K.V. Sohan submitted that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) wanted him in its custody for four days for interrogation. He was questioned earlier only for a few hours.
Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Kunju submitted that he was still in hospital and his health condition was “precarious”. There was also a possibility of the investigation team taking him away from the hospital. Therefore, he sought an early hearing on the bail petition.
The court adjourned the hearing to December 11.
Mr. Kunju in his bail petition said that his arrest was a “politically motivated one”. The immediate trigger for his arrest was the local body elections as well as to fend off the onslaught on the government launched by the Opposition parties, including the IUML on various controversial issues. A false case had been foisted on him, he said.
He refuted the allegation of the VACB that he had illegally sanctioned ₹ 8,25,59,768 as mobilisation advance to the contractor who undertook the construction of the flyover. The allegation was false. In fact, he had only formally approved the sanction of the advance amount when it reached him after recommended by two IAS officers and routed through the proper channel in the Secretariat. The investigating officer could not find any reliable materials against him to justify his arrest. He was suffering from multiple myeloma with renal failure and was undergoing treatment at a hospital in Kochi since April 2020. Besides, it had been more than two weeks since the arrest of the petitioner. Therefore, the VACB’s plea for further custody of the petitioner was arbitrary and unwarranted, the former Minister contended.
