A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed the bail pleas of five corporate executives, who were named as accused by the CBI in the 2G spectrum allocation scam but were not arrested.

"All the bail applications have been rejected," special CBI judge O P Saini said. With the rejection of their bail pleas, they were likely to be remanded in judicial custody.

The corporate executives are Swan Telecom director Vinod Goenka, Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd managing director Sanjay Chandra, and three top officials of Reliance ADA Group Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair.

The five were not arrested during the probe into the case.

The court did not allow the bail plea of ailing Surendra Pipara even though special public prosecutor U U Lalit had not opposed his application.

The court asked the corporate honchos to remain present during the proceedings today.

After pronouncement of the order, one of the defence lawyers raised a question as to whether the accused would file their further bail application in the supreme court or in the Delhi high court.

The supreme court, in one of its orders in the case, had barred all other courts except Special Judge O P Saini from hearing matters relating to the 2G scam case.

Meanwhile, the counsel for Vivek Goenka of Swan Telecom made a fervent plea to the court to grant his client an interim bail for seven days to allow him to make arrangements to manage his widespread business affairs in his absence.

His counsel said Goenka is willing to remain present during the entire day on all seven days before the court and pleaded that he be granted bail for seven days.

After hearing Goenka's plea, the court said it will decide on it in the post lunch session.

The special court of ASJ Saini, constituted specially to hold day-to-day trial in the 2G spectrum allocation case, had on April 15 reserved its order on the bail pleas of the five corporate executives, noting the CBI argument that they be sent to jail as they pose the risk of influencing or winning over witnesses.

"Considering the matter on record, complicity of the present accused in the crime is clearly made out. The act complained of and offences alleged are serious, having made deep inroads in public interest and financial affairs of the state," Special Public Prosecutor Lalit had argued, pleading the court to take the five in custody.

"The accused are holding high positions and now that the names of witnesses are disclosed, some of whom are directly working under/or amenable to their directions, the possibility of winning over and/or influencing the witnesses is clearly there," the CBI had said in its reply, opposing their bail plea.

The CBI had also feared that the accused might abscond and that may hinder the smooth trial.

Opposing CBI's plea, senior advocates K T S Tulsi, Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, arguing for the corporate heads, had said that sending the accused, whose arrest was not required during the probe, to jail now would amount to "travesty of justice" and was an "astounding proposition" of law.