Special CBI Judge Sanjeev Jain will pronounce the order on July 7 on the plea of Srivastava, who was arrested on February 25, last year for allegedly taking bribe from a private firm in return for grant of lucrative contracts.
Counsel Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Srivastava, argued that the Central Bureau of Investigation had not obtained proper sanction before arresting the public servant nor was he arrested "from the spot".
He also contended that the probe agency did not adhere to the process earmarked in the CBI's crime manual regarding the arrest and registration of FIR in graft cases.
The CBI, however, said that prior sanction could not be obtained as they had laid a trap for Srivastava's arrest on the basis of information received from a source and the whole purpose would be defeated if written permission was sought.
The agency said that it had informed its Director before lodging the FIR and added that the crime manual was for administrative control of the officers.
Special Judge Jain, however, observed that once the CBI had seized what it had to seize and had arrested the persons present at the spot and as Srivastava was not there, the trap was complete. The agency should have, thereafter, obtained sanction, he said.
"Once you seized what was to be seized and as Srivastava was not there, then the trap was complete. Why go after him, thereafter, without permission when trap was over? What was the urgency after the trap was over? You arrested his wife in the matter, you could have, thereafter, obtained sanction to arrest Srivastava," the court said. (More)