The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from disgraced former Satyam chief B Ramalinga Raju as to why his bail should not be cancelled, as sought by the CBI in the Rs 7,000-crore Satyam scam.

A Bench headed by justice Dalveer Bhandari issued a notice to Raju asking him to file his reply by October 19, the date on which other bail cancellation petitions filed by CBI against former managing director B Rama Raju and former chief financial officer V Srinivas and other employees of the IT firm Ramakrishna, Venkatapathi and Srisailam are to be heard.

Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the CBI told the Bench that ailing Raju was undergoing treatment.

Challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that granted bail to Raju, the investigative agency has assured the apex court that the trial is likely to be completed within six months and the impugned decision would cause serious impediments for the witnesses to come forward and depose against Raju. CBI said Ramalinga Raju could tamper with evidence if released, and as chief executive of the firm at the time of the fraud, he was more accountable than the CFO and the MD.

The CBI said it was a case based on documents and the evidence to expose the crime came mainly from employees of Satyam, who were recruited by these accused. It said the HC ignored its plea that ?most of the witnesses were appointed by these accused and hence they may not come forward to depose against them, in case they were released on bail?.

The CBI also stated that there cannot be any parity between Raju and others as far as the seriousness of the case is concerned. ?… parity cannot be claimed by the respondent (Raju) that he is on a par with T Srinivas who was granted bail by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2010. Parity could be claimed only if the roles of two persons (Raju and Srinivas) are similar or identical,? the CBI said in its petition while appealing against the bail granted to Raju.

The probe agency submitted that the roles of Srinivas and Raju was quite different in the scam and the latter could not be granted bail on that criteria.