CBI orders Laloo's arrest as Supreme Court denies bail
The Central Bureau of Investigation ordered the arrest of former Bihar chief minister Laloo Prasad Yadav hours after the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed his special leave petition seeking anticipatory bail. The court also rejected the pleas of two of Laloo Yadav's former ministers Vidyasagar Nishad and Bhola Ram Toofani.
The petitions, directed against the Patna high court's judgment
dismissing their plea for anticipatory bail in the Rs 9.5 billion fodder scam, were quashed by a three-judge bench comprising Justices M K Mukherjee, S P Kurdukar and K T Thomas.
In their brief order, the judges said, "We are in complete agreement with the high court. We, however, refrain from giving reasons for our order as it may unconsciously influence the designated CBI court in Patna trying the case."
Earlier, senior counsel Rajendra Singh, appearing for the former
chief minister, submitted before the court that there was nothing
on record to show that Laloo Yadav had received ''fodder'' money or he had tried to interfere with the evidence or investigation.
He said the allegation against his client was that as chief minister he did not allow the investigation to proceed, allowing the accused to escape from the clutches of the law. This was not not correct, the counsel said.
Singh said in the first and second stages of the
case the CBI had not been able to establish a case of conspiracy against his client.
Reacting to this, Justice Mukherjee said ''primarily this is a case of omission and a person committing this kind of omission could be charged as a conspirator''.
The judge noted that the fraudulent withdrawals in the state animal husbandry department started much before Laloo Yadav came on the scene. However, 220 per cent of the money was withdrawn during his regime. ''Could you claim that he was not aware of it?'' the judge asked.
The counsel contended that as soon as Laloo Yadav learnt of the scam he ordered a vigilance inquiry, followed by an inquiry by the
public accounts committee of the Bihar assembly. It was at his
instance that as many as 41 first information reports were lodged.
''It is therefore wrong to say that Laloo Yadav is personally
involved in the case at any stage,'' he said.
At this stage, the additional solicitor general -- appearing for the CBI
-- informed the apex court that the designated court had already taken
cognisance of the chargesheet and issued non-bailable warrants
against them. Therefore, the CBI had to execute the arrest warrants.
Justice Mukherjee then said there was no need for anticipatory bail as arrest warrants have already been issued . ''If your client is
arrested he could approach the trial court for regular bail,'' the
judge said.
Rajendra Singh said the matter was not so simple.
Even when the CBI's request seeking permission to prosecute Laloo Yadav was pending with the governor, there were largescale agitations and strikes to pressurise the governor to expedite the sanction.
''Who was responsible for such a situation?'' Justice Kurdukar
asked the counsel.
''Is it proper on your part to say that the governor was not
willing to accord the sanction?'' Justice Thomas asked.
Justice Mukherjee also asked the counsel if the governor was
provoked to grant the sanction by the agitations and strikes.
The counsel replied he did not mean all that. All he
wanted to say was the governor was taking time to examine the CBI case, when pressure was being built up.
The counsel submitted that since his client can be presumed to be innocent he should be granted anticipatory bail.
''The high court in the interest of your client did not grant him
bail,'' Justice Mukherjee quipped.
If the anticipatory bail is not possible, the apex court could ask Laloo Yadav to surrender on a particular date by taking an undertaking to that effect, the counsel urged. ''What is the value of such an undertaking? Could we proceeded against him for contempt of court?'' Justice Mukherjee asked.
Senior counsel K T S Tulsi, appearing for Nishad, said that
allegation against his client was that he had stayed the transfer
of one of the officers in the animal husbandry department. The officer was
subsequently found involved in the fraudulent withdrawals. ''How
could Nishad be charged for conspiracy in the case when he was
totally unaware of the role of the officer concerned in the scam?''
Tulsi said.
Senior counsel Shakeel Ahmed Khan, one of the ministers in the
expanded cabinet of Rabri Devi, who appeared for Toofani
submitted that his client was a minister of state at the relevant
time. The allegation against him was that he extended the service of two animal husbandry officials who were subsequently found involved in the fraudulent
withdrawals. ''How could he be charged with conspiracy as he
was not aware of the involvement of the two officers?'' Khan asked, adding that his 80-year-old client should be granted anticipatory bail.
Justice Mukherjee observed that if he could be a minister at
the age of 80, ''then what is the justification for granting him
bail on this plea?''
UNI
|
