The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Supreme court a day after a special Delhi court discharged the Maran brothers and others accused in the Aircel-Maxis case. The ED has also requested the Supreme Court to not release the attached properties of the accused.
The special court had on Thursday ordered the release of the properties attached by the ED.
Anand Grover, the Special Public Prosecutor also noted that proper procedure was not followed by the lower court while discharging the Maran brothers and had not asked them to furnish bail bonds.
The apex court has asked ED to file a proper petition and has listed the matter for hearing at 2pm on Friday.
The special court had cleared them of all the charges filed by both the ED and the CBI on Thursday, stating there was not sufficient grounds to proceed against them. The bail pleas filed by them, had as a result become infructuous.
The Central Bureau of Investigation had alleged that Dayanidhi Maran, as Telecom Minister in the UPA-I government used his influence to help Malaysian businessman TA Ananda Krishnan to buy Aircel by coercing its owner Sivasankaran to part with his stake.
Along with Maran, his brother and businessman Kalanithi Maran, Chennai-based firm Sun Direct TV, Krishnan, his aide Augustus Ralph Marshall, and the two accused firms -- Maxis Communications Berhad and Astro All Asia Networks, both of Malaysia, were charged in the case.
The order, passed by special judge OP Saini, notes that the former Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran and his wife Priya had no stake in Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd or South Asia FM.
"In the eyes of law, these grounds themselves are not enough to connect the money received in the company of Kalanithi Maran and Dayanidhi Maran. The fact that they are real brothers or shareholders in some companies or that Dayanidhi Maran got a letter addressed to his brother Kalanithi Maran collected through his stenographer, are by themselves not indicative of conspiracy. They may indicate close association but nothing beyond that," the judge stated.
The court went on to observe, "Perception or suspicion are not enough for criminal prosecution. Perception or suspicion is required to be supported by legally admissible evidence."