/ciol/media/agency_attachments/c0E28gS06GM3VmrXNw5G.png)
Follow UsJustice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu issued the notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and asked it to respond in two weeks.
Both Chandra and Goenka were represented by senior counsels Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohtagi. They have challenged the high court order of May 23 rejecting their bail.
Faulting the high court verdict, the petitioners said that it was a well settled legal position that bail relief is a norm and denial is an exception.
The petitioners said that their fundamental right to freedom granted under article 21 of the constitution was being violated.
Their petitions said that the denial of bail was unjustified as there was no evidence that the petitioners may tamper with evidences or influence the witnesses.
Unitech Wireless claims it only followed policy
Meanwhile, claiming innocence in the second generation spectrum allotment case, Unitech Wireless concluded its arguments in a Delhi court, saying this is a case where the accused have been charged for following government policies.
The company told Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Special Judge O.P. Saini that the licence obtained by it was as per the government policies and that it did not violate any of the conditions.
Counsel for Unitech Wireless Meet Malhotra said: "Licenses were given strictly according to the policy and given at the prices decided. The company simply followed the policy decisions which were recommended by the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) and approved by cabinet."
The company asked the court why the CBI raised so much hue and cry about the loss incurred when the government itself, in the recent past, said that "2G (allocation) was a zero loss" process.
Malhotra said the allegation that Unitech sold equity to global player Telenor and made a windfall was absolutely incorrect.