Post on 17-Jan-2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO. 2219 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF: -
LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV …Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI(AHD) …Respondent
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
CBI
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : A K SHARMA
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO. 2219 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF: -
LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV …Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI(AHD) …Respondent
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT CBI
I, _______________-, aged about ____ years presently posted
as ____________________-, ____________________________ do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under -
1. That I am arrayed as the Respondent in the aforesaid Special
Leave Petition and being well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present matter and is competent to swear
this Counter Affidavit.
2. That I have read the list of dates and the Special Leave
Petition and the contents therein is denied and nothing is
admitted unless specifically admitted herein.
Preliminary submission
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
I. SUBMISSIONS AS TO WHY THE PETITIONER BE NOT RELEASED ON
BAIL
1. It is respectfully submitted that before placing before this
Hon'ble Court, the detailed facts showing the gravity of the
offences committed by the petitioner for which he is found to be
guilty, the respondent, as an investigating agency, thinks it
appropriate to place the facts for kind consideration of this
Hon'ble Court to show as to why the grant of any relief in favour
of the petitioner would not only be against the “ZERO
TOLERANCE POLICY ON CORRUPTION” of this Hon'ble Court but
would also be setting a very wrong precedence in all corruption
cases. These submissions are classified in four categories as
under:
A- The petitioner seems to have created an impression that he
is convicted for only 3.5 years and has already undergone
substantial portion. This submission is not only misleading
but factually incorrect.
B- Out of the period of 12 months in SLP (Crl) 2447 of 2019, 22
months in SLP (Crl) 2219 of 2019 and 20 months in SLP (Crl)
2451 of 2019 of the petitioner being in custody [both pre
conviction and post-conviction], it is submitted that he has
served sentence post-conviction only for 4 months app. in
SLP Crl. 2219/2019; 2 ½ months app in SLP Crl. 2447/2019
and has remained in hospital for a period of 8 ½ months
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
app. on the ground that his condition is so bad that he
cannot be housed in a jail.
In fact in SLP Crl. 2451/2019 where the Petitioner has
been convicted for 7+7 years he has not served jail sentence
even for a single day and has remained in hospital ever since
his conviction and sentence was pronounced;
C- During the period in which the petitioner remained in
hospital, he is not only granted a special paying ward with
all facilities but he is virtually conducting his political
activities from there which would be clear from the visitors
register facts of which are explained hereunder.
D- The petitioner who claimed to be so unwell that he cannot
even remain in jail but has to remain hospitalized suddenly
claimed to be fully fit physically and sought bail, inter alia,
on the ground which is recorded and rejected by the Hon'ble
High Court as under:
“Appellant has also urged an additional ground that being a Founder and President of Rashtriya Janata Dal, a political party, his release is required to guide the party and carry out all essential responsibilities as a president of the party in the ensuing General Election to the Lok Sabha in the next few months”
The very same petitioner who wanted to get bail to lead his
party in coming Lok Sabha election in elections comes before the
highest court of the country in the present matter and again
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
seeking bail on medical grounds as mentioned in para 6[a] of SLP
[Crl.] No.2219 of 2019.
It is submitted that simultaneous raising of pleas for bail on
medical grounds and bail to guide the party and to carry out all
essential responsibilities as a party president in ensuing Lok
Sabha election are mutually contradictory and manifests that in
the garb of Bail on Medical Ground the Petitioner in essence want
to pursue his political activities which is impermissible in law.
Thus on this ground only the present petition is liable to be
dismissed.
2. All the above referred facts coming with respect to the
convicted person / accused who occupied the constitutional office
of the Chief Minister of one of the largest States in the country
and who has been held to be guilty of misappropriation of Rs.
75.48 crores in four (4) Fodder Scam Cases and who is still
undergoing trial in two cases for another misappropriation of
Rs.139.45 crores requires to be viewed in light of the settled law
declared by this Hon'ble Court in K.C. Sareen case [(2001) 6
SCC 584] wherein it was held as under:-
12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions.”
A- The period for which the petitioner is actually convicted
A-1) The petitioner’s assertion that he has been convicted only for
3.5 years [in the SLP (crl.) No. 2219 of 2019, which incidentally is
listed first] would be a misleading presentation.
A-2) Considering the gravity of the offence of corruption in public
as well as the constitutional office which the petitioner abused
and misappropriated huge amount of public money, and
considering that the petitioner is to undergo 27.5 years of
sentence [cumulatively calculated for all four convictions], the
discretionary remedy of grant of bail is rightly refused by both the
courts below and this may not be a case where this Hon'ble Court
ought to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. For ready reference of this Hon'ble Court the details
of cases, where the Petitioner has been convicted is as under:-
Sl. No.
Total No. of Cases related to Lalu Yadav
Number of
Accused
Convicts
Amount Involved
Sentence to the Petitioner
1 RC20(A)/96-Pat Date of Judgement:- 30.09.2013. Name of Treasury:- Chiabasa Period of offence:- 1994-95
46 37.70 Crores
R.I for 05 years and fine of Rs. 25 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Released on bail on 13.12.2013
2 RC38(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2951/2019
Date of Judgement:- 19.03.2018.
Name of Treasury:- Dumka
Period of offence:- 1995 to 1996
19 Rs.3.76 Crores
R.I for 14 [7+7] years and fine of Rs. 60 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for 2 years.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
3 RC64(A)/96-Pat.
SLP Crl 2219/2019 Date of Judgement:- 23.12.2017. Name of Treasury:- Deoghar Period of offence:- 1991-94
18 Rs. 89 Lakhs
R.I for 3.5 years and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. Note:- A Criminal Appeal for enhancement of sentence of the Petitioner and 05 others in this Case is pending before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi.
4 RC68(A)/96-Pat.
SLP Crl 2447/2019
Date of Judgement:- 24.01.2018. Name of Treasury:- Chaibasa Period of offence:- 1992-93
50 Rs.33.13 Crores
R.I for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for 01 year
5 RC47(A)/96-Pat NA Rs.139 Crores
Under Trial Case, stage Prosecution Evidence.
6 RC63(A)/96-Pat NA Rs. 45 Lakhs
-do-
B- Time period when the Petitioner remained in hospital after conviction
B-1) I respectfully state and submit that the following chart
shows that after recording of conviction in respective cases, how
many days the petitioner has remained in jail and during the said
period how many days he has been in hospital:-
Sl. No.
Total No. of Cases related to Lalu Yadav
Period in jail before conviction
Period in jail after
conviction
Period in hospital after conviction as on date of filing
of Counter Affidavit
1. RC38(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2951/2019
12 ½ months app
NIL.
[8 1/2 months app.] 19.03.2018 to till date except parole period from 11.05.2018 to 13.05.2018 and provisional bail period from 16.05.2018 to 29.08.2018.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
R.I for 14 [7+7] years
2. RC64(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2219/2019 R.I for 3.5 years
11 ½ months app
3 months app [8 1/2 months app.] 17.03.2018 to till date except parole period from 11.05.2018 to 13.05.2018 and provisional bail period from 16.05.2018 to 29.08.2018
3. RC68(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2447/2019 R.I for 5 years
2 months app.
2 ½ months [8 1/2 months app.] 17.03.2018 to till date except parole period from 11.05.2018 to 13.05.2018 and provisional bail period from 16.05.2018 to 29.08.2018
B-2) Thus from the aforesaid it is clear that the after recording of
conviction the petitioner has remained in hospital for 8 ½ months
app.
B-3) It is submitted that as detailed hereinafter, even during his
hospital stay, the petitioner used to carry out his day to day
political activities which is reflected from the visitors which he
used to receive in the hospital.
C- Activities of the Petitioner while being In special paying
ward provided to him in hospital:-
C-1) It is submitted that when the petitioner could not remain in
hospital and was confined to jail, it was only for a period of 0 days
in SLP Crl 2951/2019; 3 months app. in SLP Crl 2219/2019; 2 ½
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
months app in SLP Crl 2447/2019 that he remained in jail.
During the jail period also the petitioner is regularly conducting
his political activities. The said fact is reflected from the visitor’s
register which the investigating agency namely CBI obtained.
C-2) From the record of the jail and the visitor’s register, it is
found that out of total number of Nil days in SLP Crl 2451/2019;
3 months app. in SLP Crl 2219/2019; 2 ½ months app in SLP
Crl 2447/2019 while the Petitioner was in jail he met 9 people.
C-3) However, for the period of 8 ½ months when the Petitioner
was in hospital he was visited by a total number of 110 visitors.
It submitted that the said visitors include the following:-
Sl.
No.
Date Total
Number
of
Visitors
Name of Visitors
1. 31.03.2018 2 Ram Jetmalani, Senior Advocate
Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
2. 01.04.2018 1 Ahmed Patel, Politician
3. 09.04.2018 4 Chitranjan Sinha, Advocate
D. Raja, M.P.
Derek O’ Brien, M.P., West Bengal
Salim Pervez
4. 16.04.2018 2 Chitranjan Sinha, Advocate
Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
5. 17.04.2018 3 Saiyad Faizal Ali
Avadh Bihari Choudhary
Kirti Vardan Azad, M.P.
6. 03.05.2018 3 Hemant Soren, Ex. Chief Minister,
Jharkhand.
Bandhu Tirkey, Ex. Minister, Govt. of
Jharkhand
Alamgir Alam, Ex. Speaker, Jharkhand
Vidhan Sabha
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
7. 04.05.2018 2 Jitendra Narayan Singh, Probation Officer,
Ranchi
Ziya-ul-Haq, Probation Officer, Ranchi
8. -- 1 Prabhat Kumar, Legal Advisor, Jh HC.
9. 15.04.2018 3 Dhananjay Kumar
Choudhary Mehboob Ali Kaishar, Politician
Sudhanshu Suman, Chairman, Ranchi
Express
10. 31.08.2018 1 Tej Pratap Yadav, son and Politician
11. 07.09.2018 3 Santosh Kumar Suman, s/o Jitanram
Manjhi, Ex. CM, Bihar.
Pawan Kumar Ruiya
Akhilesh Kumar Singh
12. 22.09.2018 3 Awadhesh Kumar Singh
Lokesh Choudhary, CMD, Bihar Jharkhand
Sadhna News
Subhash Kumar Yadav, brother in law and
politician
13. 29.09.2018 3 Tejaswi Kumar Yadav, son and Ex. Dy. CM,
Bihar
Annpurna Devi, Ex. Minister, Govt. of
Jharkhand
Akhilesh Prasad Singh
14. 06.10.2018 3 Hema Yadav, daughter
Vinit Yadav
Ramai Ram, Politician
15. 12.10.2018 3 Rohni Acharya
Krishna Kumar Yadav
Shivanand Tiwary, Ex. M.P.
16. 20.10.2018 3 Rohni Acharya, daughter
Chanda Yadav, daughter
Vikram Yadav, Son in law.
17. 27.10.2018 3 B. N. Yadav
Shiv Kumar Yadav
Jitendra Yadav, Member, U.P. Vidhan
Parishad
18. 02.11.2018 2 Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
Chitranjan Sinha, Advocate
19. 03.11.2018 3 Surendra Kumar Takhur
Tej Pratap Yadav, son and politician
Lokesh Choudhary, CMD, Bihar Jharkhand
Sadhna News
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
20. 10.11.2018 3 Tejaswi Prasad Yadav, son and Ex. Dy. CM,
Bihar.
Ragini, daughter
Rahul Yadav, son in law
21. 17.11.2018 3 Saiyad Faisal Ali
D.P. Tripathy
Rekha Devi
22. 24.11.2018 3 Kanti Singh, Ex. Minister, GoI.
Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, Ex.M.P.
Renu Yadav
23. 01.12.2018 3 Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Yadav
Kapish Gautam Mehra
Nalin Kumar Verma
24. 08.12.2018 2 Sudhakar Singh, s/o Jagdanand Singh,
Politician
Sharad Yadav, Ex Minister, GoI.
25. 15.12.2018 3 Uday Narayan Choudhary, Speaker, Bihar
Vidhan Sabha
Abdul Bari Siddique, Ex. Minister, Govt. of
Bihar.
Vrisan Patel, M.P.
26. 22.12.2018 3 Hemant Soran, Ex Chief Minister,
Jharkhand
Subodh Kant Sahay, Ex Minister, GoI
Satrughan Sinha, Ex Minister, GoI
27. 29.12.2018 3 Tejaswi Yadav, sona Leader of Opposition,
Bihar
Upendra Singh Kushwaha, Ex. Minister,
Govt. of India
Mukesh Sahni, President, Vikasheel Insan
Party
28. 05.01.2019 3 Jitanram Manjhi, Ex CM, Bihar
Samresh Singh, Politician
Sharad Yadav, Ex Minister, GoI
29. 12.01.2019 3 Faiyaz Ahmed
Sitaram Yetury, M.P., Rajya Sabha
Bhuvneshwar Prasad Mehta, Ex. M.P.
30. 19.01.2019 4 D. Raja, M.P.
Santosh Kumar Suman, S/o Jitanram
Manjhi, Ex. CM, Bihar
Kanti Singh, Ex. M.P. and Ex. Minister, GoI.
Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
31. 26.01.2019 3 Mira Kumar, Ex Lok Sabha Speaker
Upendra Kumar Kushwaha, Ex. Minister,
GoI.
Dr. Ajay Kumar, President, Jharkhand
Congress
32. 02.02.2019 3 Jai Prakash Yadav, M.P.
Kapis Gautam Mehra
R.P.N. Singh, Politician
33. --- 3 Prabhunath Yadav, relative.
Mangita Devi, MLA
Rama Kishore Singh, M.P.
34. 16.02.2019 3 Bandhu Tirkey, Ex. Minister, Govt. of
Jharkhand.
Tejaswi Prasad Yadav, son and Ex. Dy.CM,
Bihar
Shalini Mishra
35. 19.02.2019 2 Hema Yadav, daughter
Vinit Kumar, son in law
36. 23.02.2019 3 Md. Asfaq Karim, M.P., Rajya Sabha
Jitan Ram Manjhi, Ex. CM, Bihar
Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, Ex. Minister,
GoI
37. 02.03.2019 3 Satrughan Sinha, Ex. Minister, GoI
P.V. Josekutti
Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, CMD, Bihar
Jharkhand Sadhna News
38. 09.03.2019 3 Sharad Yadav, Ex. Minister, Govt. of India
Maharaja Sahni
Bhuvenswar Prasad Mehta, Ex. M.P.
39. 16.03.2019 3 Tarique Anwar, M.P.
D.P. Tripathy
Capt. Ajay Yadav
40. 23.03.2019 3 Jitendra Yadav
Asha Yadav
Ajit Kumar Jha
D- In The Garb Of Bail On Medical Ground The Petitioner Is
Seeking Bail To Pursue his Political Activities in the
ensuing 2019 Lok Sabha election:-
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
D-1) It is submitted that the above referred facts would show that
the petitioner, during substantial part of his sentence, remained
in hospital on the ground that he is so unwell that not just
medical treatment but hospitalization is necessary. However,
suddenly when the Parliamentary elections become near, the
petitioner clearly took a somersault and sought bail on the ground
that he wants to lead his political party in Parliamentary elections
which is recorded and rejected by the Hon'ble High Court as
under:
“Appellant has also urged an additional ground that being a
Founder and President of Rashtriya Janata Dal, a political
party, his release is required to guide the party and carry out
all essential responsibilities as a president of the party in the
ensuing General Election to the Lok Sabha in the next few
months.
However, this court does not find much strength on this plea,
more so for the reason that the appellant has been convicted
for serious charges of criminal conspiracy and offeces under
the PC act. The appellant has not undergone custody for half
of the sentence out of 3 years awarded to him, as on date. As
such, this court does not find any fresh ground made out to
enlarge the appellant on bail upon grant of privilege of
suspension. Accordingly prayer made in IA 11057/2018 is
rejected ”
D-2) It is submitted that a person who claims to be so unwell that
mere medical treatment is not enough but requires hospitalization
suddenly becomes physically fit to be guiding force in
Parliamentary elections.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
D-3) It is respectfully submitted that remedy of bail is, in
substance, a discretionary remedy and when two Courts below
have rightly refused to exercise their respective discretion, the
present case may not be a case to invoke Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
D-4) It is, in the most humble and respectful submission of the
investigating agency, a case where grant of bail would set a very
wrong precedent in cases involving a serious corruption in high
offices.
D-5) It is respectfully submitted that if these considerations are
permitted to be raised by the convicted accused, even a
businessman who is found guilty of corruption can seek bail on
the ground that he wants to do his business in spite of gravity of
the offence and the period for which he is convicted.
II. Petitioner not entitled to bail even on the grounds
available to him in law:-
3. Apart from the above, it is respectfully submitted that this
Hon'ble court in catena of judgments has unequivocally held that
the suspension of sentence/bail to a convict of economic crime
under Prevention of Corruption Act is an extraordinary remedy
and its exercise is to be limited to exceptional cases only. It is
submitted that the present case pertains to an economic fraud
committed by the custodian of public administration. It is well
settled that economic offences constitute a class apart. It is
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
submitted that the present case involved a deep-rooted
conspiracy and involved huge loss and
defalcation/misappropriation of public funds affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat to the financial health of the country.
As such, considering the magnitude of the offence, the
impunity in the modus operandi adopted by the
Petitioner/accused in defalcating//misappropriating public
money disentitles the Petitioner from seeking any relief from this
Hon'ble Court, inasmuch as, any relief granted by this Hon'ble
court will entails far reaching ramification on the public
confidence which it reposes on the criminal justice delivery
system, of which sentencing is an important aspect.
3. It is submitted that the Petitioner, apart from other cases, in
RC38(A)/96-Pat. vide judgment dated 19.03.2018 has been
sentence to 14 years (7yrs +7yrs) R.I. and fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. It
is submitted that the total period of sentence awarded to the
petitioner in the aforesaid RC is 168 months out of which the
Petitioner as per his own admission has undergone only 20
months ie less than 15% of the sentence awarded. Thus as per
his own averment the Petitioner does not qualifies the “half
sentence theory” for seeking suspension of sentence and bail. It
is therefore, respectfully submitted that the present SLP filed by
the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
4. It is further submitted that while considering the application
for bail pending appeal of a convict, convicted of serious offence
of audacious corruption in public life, this Hon'ble court has to
consider the following aspects:-
i) Serious nature of the offence;
ii) the gravity of the accusations;
iii) the manner in which the crime was committed;
iv) the conduct of the accused persons in delaying the trial; and
v) ramifications of keeping such sentence in abeyance.
It is submitted that on all the aforesaid counts, as explained
in hereafter, the Petitioner is disentitled for grant of any
discretionary relief by this Hon'ble Court.
Seriousness, Magnitude and Gravity of the Offence
5. I respectfully state and submit that the magnitude and the
gravity of the offence involved in the present batch of the petitions
does not warrant any indulgence by this Hon'ble Court. It is
respectfully submitted that the present case pertains to large
scale defalcation of public money by the Petitioner accused in a
scam commonly called as Fodder Scam which involved fraudulent
withdrawal of Rs 950 Cr app. in early 1990s.
6. It is respectfully submitted that the said scam is one in the
point of time which shook the conscience of the entire nation and
continues to do so. The brazenness and impunity of the modus
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
operandi employed by the petitioner and his accomplices
deracinated the confidence which public had on purity, probity
and accountability in public officers and its elected
representatives and it was only pursuant to incessant
intervention by this Hon'ble Court as well as the High Court,
which started with filing of nine Public Interest Litigation Petitions
filed before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, that the investigations
in the present matter could start and be concluded by the CBI.
The orders passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court transferring
investigation to CBI was confirmed by this Hon'ble Court vide its
order dated 19.03.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5177 of 1996
and 5178-83 of 1996. This clearly shows the nefariousness in
design and public uproar that the fodder scam entailed.
7. It is submitted that in all 64 Fodder Scam Cases were
investigated by the CBI. However, charge sheets could be filed in
60 Cases only and remaining 04 Cases were closed for germane
reasons which are not relevant for present purpose. It is
submitted that out of these 60 cases 53 Cases were tried at
Ranchi out of which 51 Cases have since been disposed of and all
have ended in conviction.
8. It is submitted that the Petitioner ie Sh Lalu Prasad Yadav,
Ex Chief Minister, Govt. of Bihar was arraigned as accused in six
Fodder Scam Cases i.e. RC20(A)/96-Pat, RC38(A)/96-Pat,
RC47(A)/96-Pat, RC63(A)/96-Pat, RC64(A)/96-Pat and
RC68(A)/96-Pat. The Petitioner ie Sh Lalu Prasad Yadav has been
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
convicted in 4 out the above mentioned 6 cases and the two Cases
i.e. RC47(A)/96-Pat and RC63(A)/96-Pat against the Petitioner Sh
Lalu Prasad Yadav and others are still pending trial at Special
Court, Ranchi and Patna respectively. The following chart details
the status of the cases against the Petitioner:-
Sl. No.
Total No. of Cases related to Lalu Yadav
Number of
Accused Convicts
Amount Involved
Sentence to the Petitioner
1 RC20(A)/96-Pat Date of Judgement:- 30.09.2013. Name of Treasury:- Chiabasa Period of offence:- 1994-95
46 37.70 Crores
R.I for 05 years and fine of Rs. 25 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for six months.
2 RC38(A)/96-Pat.
Date of Judgement:- 19.03.2018.
Name of Treasury:- Dumka
Period of offence:- 1995 to 1996
19 Rs.3.76 Crores
R.I for 14 years [7+7] and fine of Rs. 60 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for 2 years.
3 RC64(A)/96-Pat. Date of Judgement:- 23.12.2017. Name of Treasury:- Deoghar Period of offence:- 1991-94
18 Rs. 89 Lakhs
R.I for 3.5 years and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. Note:- A Criminal Appeal for enhancement of sentence of the Petitioner and 05 others in this Case is pending before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi.
4 RC 68(A)/96-Pat. Date of Judgement:- 24.01.2018. Name of Treasury:- Chaibasa Period of offence:- 1992-93
50 Rs.33.13 Crores
R.I for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in default to further undergo R.I. for 01 year
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
5 RC47(A)/96-Pat NA Rs.139 Crores
Under Trial Case, stage Prosecution Evidence.
6 RC63(A)/96-Pat NA Rs. 45 Lakhs
-do-
From the aforesaid chart it is clear that in out of four cases
where the Petitioner has been convicted, the maximum sentence
which has been awarded to him is 14 years (7+7 years) and the
total sentence which the Petitioner is awarded is 27.5 years. The
Petitioner as of now have only undergone 20 months.
Thus considering the serious nature of the offence and the
gravity of accusation alone no indulgence by this Hon'ble court in
granting grant bail to the Petitioner is warranted.
Modus Operandi Of The Commission Of Crime As Held By The
Competent Court:-
9. I respectfully state and submit that the brazen manner in
which crime was committed ie siphoning of government funds
against non-existent supplies, giving protection to the co-accused
and receiving benefits from them for providing political patronage
also disentitles the accused/Petitioner from seeking any relief
from this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court
in all the aforesaid 4 cases has detailed the brazenness with which
the Petitioner/accused had committed the crime. The following
chart shows the relevant details of the finding rendered by the
trial court against the accused:-
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Sl. No.
Total No. of Cases related to Lalu Yadav
SLP No Relevant para of the judgment
2 RC38(A)/96-Pat. R.I for 14 years [7+7]
SLP Crl 2451/2019 Para 110-114 @pg 207-211
3 RC 64(A)/96-Pat. R.I for 3.5 years
SLP Crl 2219/2019 Para -157-167 Pg 208-224
4 RC 68(A)/96-Pat. R.I for 5 years
SLP Crl 2447/2019 Pg 337
10. In a nutshell the modus operandi adopted by the accused
was by signing false allotment letters issued by AHD,
Headquarter, Patna (Capital of erstwhile Bihar) to the different
districts by putting false memo number. On the basis of these
false allotment letters for the concerned district the suppliers in
conspiracy with District Officers/officials of AHD used to prepare
false bills of supply which were passed by District Officials and
Treasury Officers of the concerned district and payment were
made to the suppliers
Thus in view of the above as well as findings rendered by the
Ld. Trial Court as detailed in the above chart elaborating the
brazen and audacious manner in which the present offence was
committed also disentitles the Petitioner from seeking any relief
from this Hon'ble Court.
The Conduct Of The Accused Persons In Delaying The Trial
[In View Of The Fact That The Petitioner Is Still Undergoing
Two Trials]
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
11. I respectfully state and submit that the present case pertains
to defalcation of public money in the year 1996 – 97 and the
chargesheet against the Petitioner was filed in the year 2000.
However, it took 18 years for the trial to conclude. It is submitted
that the delay which occurred in the matter is attributable to the
Petitioner which has been duly recorded by the Ld. Trial Court in
Slp Crl 2451/2019 @ pg 209 wherein the Ld. Trial Court held as
under:-
“On the wherein on the basis of politics accused created
hurdles in disposal of criminal cases which remained
pending upto twenty years and accused enjoyed politics
power. Although chargehsheet submitted on 11.5.2000
in the Court, but the accused Lalu Yadav elected as MP
and become Railway Minister in Central Government.
Whereas the condition at the time of bail impose by the
Hon'ble Court is that without permission of trial court,
the accused do not go beyond Bihar State.”
Thus on this count also the accused is not entitled for any
discretionary relief by this Hon'ble court.
Ramifications Of Keeping Such Sentence In Abeyance
12. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is also not
entitled to any discretionary relief in as much as far reaching
ramification will entail if the Petitioner is granted bail. It is stated
that considering the gravity of the offence, the impunity with
which such offence was committed and the position of the
Petitioner who while being the elected head of the State ie the
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Chief Minister by abuse of his official position of the constitutional
post of the Chief Minister engineered and masterminded the scam
and became a kingpin thereof, if any relief is granted by this
Hon'ble court it would entail a sense that the punishment
awarded to the Petitioner does not commensurate with the gravity
of the offence which he has committed.
13. It is submitted that this Hon'ble court has unequivocally
held that “corruption by public servants has now reached a
monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling
even the institutions created for the protection of the republic.
Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping
the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through
strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt
public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such
institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity.” It has been
held by this Hon'ble court that “Proliferation of corrupt public
servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order” and
therefore, if such convicted public servants, who had previously
occupied high constitutional posts and are held guilty of not only
corrupt practice but also of protracting the trial for as long as 18
years by exercising their political clout and influence, are granted
bail pending appeal when they have not even served 15% of the
sentence awarded to them by a criminal court of law, then the
same will shake the public confidence in criminal justice
dispensation system.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
14. Considering the magnitude of the offence and the
ramification of keeping such sentence in abeyance, it is
respectfully submitted that the relief prayed by the Petitioner
before this Hon'ble court are liable to be rejected.
15. The petitioner is facing two trials inter alia for
misappropriation of public funds involving Rs.139.45 crores. It is
submitted that as pointed out in the Chart produced hereinabove,
the petitioner is still facing two serious trials which are at the
stage of prosecution evidence. This stage itself is a very crucial
stage which a powerful accused can influence the trial by using
various methods out of the said trials respectively taking place in
Patna and Ranchi.
16. The petitioner’s release would seriously hamper the smooth
progress of the said trials apart from an intended message being
sent to the witnesses not to depose the truth before Court.
Brief Facts of the Case:-
17. That Case No. RC 64(A)/96-Pat, one of the Fodder Scam
Cases, was registered in CBI, ACB, Patna on 15.05.1996 u/s
120B, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(c) & (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against 28 persons/firms in compliance
of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.03.1996
and the Hon’ble Patna High Court on 11.03.1996.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
18. That Case No. RC 64(A)/96-Pat pertains to fraudulent
withdrawals of Rs. 95.08 lakhs from District Treasury, Deoghar
during the period 1991-94 by the accused Public Servants of
AHD, Deoghar and Treasury Office, Deoghar for making payments
of fake bills submitted for supply of veterinary medicines and
transportation of Animal Feed from stores of AHD Ranchi to
Deoghar.
19. That charge sheet in this Case was filed on 28.10.1997 U/s
120B, 418, 420, 467, 468, 477A, 409, 201 & 511 IPC and Section
13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against following 34
persons:-
Sl.
No. Name Designation/Status
1. Dr. Shesh Muni Ram The then Regional Director,
AHD, Ranchi,
2. Dr. Vinay Kumar The then DAHO, Deoghar
3. Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad The then Veterinary Officer
4.
Shri Tripurari Mohan Prasad
Prop. of M/s Bihar Surgico-
Medico Agency
The then Supplier/Private
Party
5. Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha Prop.
of M/s Baba Chemical Works
The then Supplier/Private
Party
6. Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal,
Prop. of M/s Sanjay Kumar
The then Supplier/Private
Party
7. Shri Sushil Kumar Jha, MD
M/s Sri Gauri Distributor
The then Supplier/Private
Party
8. Smt. Sarswati Chandra, Porp.
of M.s S.R. Enterprises
The then Supplier/Private
Party
9. Shri Pramod Kumar Jaiswal,
Prop. of M/s Bhagat & Co.
The then Supplier/Private
Party
10. Shri Gopi Nath Das, Prop. of
M/s Radha Pharmacy
The then Supplier/Private
Party
11. Shri O.P. Gupta, Prop. of M/s
O.P. Gupta
The then Supplier/Private
Party
12. Shri Jyoti Kumar Jha, Prop. of
M/s Seva Medical Agencies
The then Supplier/Private
Party
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
13.
Shri Sushil Kumar, M/s
Samarpan Veterinary
Enterprises
The then Supplier/Private
Party
14. Smt. Usha Singh Prop. of M/s
Usha Pharma
The then Supplier/Private
Party
15. Shri Sunil Gandhi, Prop. of
M/s Magadh Distributors
The then Supplier/Private
Party
16. Dr. Shayam Bihar Sinha The then Joint Regional
Director, AHD, Ranchi
17. Shri Braj Bushan Prasad The then Accounts Officer,
AHD, Bihar
18. Shri Raghvendra Kishore Das The then Administrative
Officer, AHD, Patna
19. Dr. Ram Raj Ram The then Director, AHD, Patna
20. Shri Mahesh Prasad IAS, the then Secretary, AHD,
Govt. of Bihar
21. Shri Beck Julius IAS, the then Secretary, AHD,
Govt. of Bihar
22. Shri Bhola Ram Tofani The then Minister, AHD, Patna
23. Shri Chandradeo Prasad
Verma
Ex. Minister, AHD, Govt. of
Bihar
24. Shri Jagdish Sharma MLA, the then PAC, Bihar
25. Shri Lalu Prasad @ Lalu
Prasad Yadav Ex. CM, Bihar
26. Shri K. Arumugham IAS, the then Secretary AHD
27. Shri Phul Chand Singh
IAS, The then Finance
Commissioner/ Development
Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar
28. Shri Vidya Sagar Nishad The then Minister, AHD, Bihar
29. Dr. Jagannath Mishra Ex.CM/ the then leader of
opposition, Bihar
30. Shri Dhrub Bhagat
MLA, the Chairman Public
Accounts Committee, Bihar
Patna
31. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana MLA,
32. Shri A.C. Choudhary IRS, the then Commissioner,
Income Tax, Ranchi
33. Shri Mahendra Prasad Private Person
34. Shri Shailesh Prasad Singh Private Person
20. That supplementary chargesheet was filed in this case on
25.08.2004 against following persons:-
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Sl.
No. Name Designation/Status
1. Shri Shiv Kumar Patwari Private Person
2. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma Private Person
3. Shri Rajo Singh MLA, Bihar
4. Shri Subir Kumar
Bhattacharya
The then Treasury Officer,
Deoghar
21. That the case records, upon bifurcation of the State, were
transferred from the Court of Spl. Judge, CBI Cases, Patna to the
Court of Spl. Judge, CBI Cases, Ranchi.
22. That the charges against 38 accused persons were framed
on 26.09.2005 by the Court of Spl. Judge, CBI (AHD Scam) at
Ranchi.
23. That the allegation in brief against the accused persons was
to the effect that the accused persons were active member of
criminal conspiracy and in pursuant to the said criminal
conspiracy they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their
official position and dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriated the Govt. money by withdrawing the huge
amounts in excess of actual allotments from District Treasury,
Deoghar under the head 2403 (AHD) on the basis of forged
allotment and sub-allotment letters. A total of Rs. 89,27,164.15
were withdrawn during the financial years 1991-92, 1992-93,
1993-94 as against the genuine allotment of Rs. 4,73,400/- only
through 371 contingent bills by the DDO and DAHO, Deoghar.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
24. That the modus operandi adopted by the accused was by
signing false allotment letters by AHD, Headquarter, Patna
(Capital of erstwhile Bihar) to the different districts by putting
false memo number. On the basis of these false allotment letters
for the concerned district the suppliers in conspiracy with District
Officers/officials of AHD used to prepare false bills of supply
which were passed by District Officials and Treasury Officers of
the concerned district and payment were made to the suppliers.
25. That in Fodder Scam Cases, charge of criminal conspiracy
was alleged at 02 levels; the first level involved officials of Animal
Husbandry Department/Drawing and Disbursing Officers and
Procurement Officers, whereas the second level of conspiracy was
alleged at higher secretariat level, who facilitated the questioned
fraud throughout the State. The above named 07 convicts was
involved in the second level of larger conspiracy involving Senior
Bureaucrats, Ministers, Politicians and Chief Minister.
26. That during Trial, 11 accused persons namely 1. Dr. Shesh
Muni Ram, 2. Dr. Vinay Kumar, 3. Dr. S.B. Sinha, 4. O.P. Gupta,
5. Mahendra Prasad, 6. Braj Bhushan Prasad, 7. Dr. Ram Raj
Ram, 8. Bhola Ram Toofani, 9. Chandradeo Prasad Verma, 10. K.
Arumugam and 11. Rajo Singh expired hence trial against them
abated.
27. That two accused persons namely Shri P.K. Jaiswal and Shri
Shushil Kumar Jha were convicted on confession in the year
2007.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
28. That three accused persons namely S/Shri Raghvendra
Kishore Das, Shiv Kumar Patwari and Shailesh Prasad Singh were
taken as approvers. During trial, Shri Raghvendra Kishore Das
also expired after his deposition in the Court.
29. That a total 128 documents running into thousands of
sheets were exhibited and 165 PWs were examined on behalf of
prosecution during trial of the case.
30. That 15 DWs were examined and 25 documents were also
admitted as defence exhibits on behalf of accused persons during
trial of the case.
31. That upon conclusion of the trial on
23.12.2017/06.01.2018, Ld. Spl. Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Cases),
Ranchi convicted following 16 accused persons with sentence
mention below against their named:-
Sl.
No.
Name of the
accused
persons
Sections Sent
ence Fine in Rs.
1.
Shri
Jagdish
Sharma
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
r/w Sec. 13 (2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of
P.C. Act, 1988.
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
2.
Dr. Krishna
Kumar
Prasad
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
r/w Sec. 13 (2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of
P.C. Act, 1988.
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
3.
Shri
Tripurari
Mohan
Prasad
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
4. Shri Sunil
Gandhi
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
5.
Shri Sanjay
Kumar
Agarwal
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
6. Shri Gopi
Nath Das
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
7. Shri Jyoti
Kumar Jha
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
7
years
10,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine one
year.
8. Shri Lalu Prasad
Yadav,
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A IPC
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six months.
r/w Sec. 13 (2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six months.
9.
Dr.
Rabindra
Kumar
Rana
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six
months.
r/w Sec. 13 (2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of
P.C. Act, 1988.
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six
months.
10. Shri
Phulchand Singh
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
r/w Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
11.
Shri
Mahesh
Prasad
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six
months.
r/w Sec. 13 (2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of
P.C. Act, 1988.
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six
months.
12. Shri Beck
Julius
120B, 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A
IPC
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default of
payment of fine six
months.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
r/w Sec. 13 (2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of
P.C. Act, 1988.
3.5
years
5,00,000/-, in default
of payment of fine six
months.
13.
Shri Subir Kumar
Bhattacharya
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
r/w Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
14.
Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
15. Shri Sushil
Kumar
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
16. Shri Sunil
Kumar Sinha
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC
3.5 years
5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months.
5. That Ld. Spl. Judge acquitted following 6 accused persons:-
Sl.
No. Name Designation/Status
1. Dr. Jagannath
Mishra
Ex. CM/the then Leader of
Opposition, Bihar
2. Vidya Sagar Nishad The then Minister, AHD, Bihar
3. Dhrub Bhagat MLA, the Chairman Public Accounts
Committee, Bihar Patna
4. Adhip Chandra
Choudhary
IRS the then Commissioner, Income
Tax, Ranchi
5. Smt. Sarswati
Chandra
Private Party
6. Smt. Sadhana Singh Private Party
32. That Criminal Appeal vide Acquittal Appeal No. 92/2018 has
been filed on 03.10.2018 in the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court
at Ranchi against acquittal of four accused persons namely Dr.
Jagannath Mishra, Vidya Sagar Nishad, Dhrub Bhagat and Adhip
Chandra Choudhary.
33. That Criminal Appeal No. 1473/2018 has been filed on
03.10.2018 in the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi for
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
enhancement of sentence in respect of convicts Beck Julius,
Mahesh Prasad, Phul Chand Singh, Subir Kumar Bhattacharya,
Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana, and Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav.
34. That apart from this case i.e. RC 64(A)/96-Pat., convict
petitioner has also been convicted in RC20(A)/96-Pat.,
RC38(A)/96-Pat. and RC68(A)/96-Pat, all AHD Scam Cases.
35. That convict petitioner is also facing trial as an accused in
RC47(A)/96-Pat., another AHD Scam Case.
Parawise Reply:-
36. That in reply to para 1, it is humbly submitted that CBI
opposes the Special Leave sought by the accused petitioner.
37. That in reply to para 1A, it is humbly submitted that the
averments made in this para is on record hence need no comment.
38. That in reply to para 2, it is humbly submitted that the
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi did not enlarge the
accused petitioner on bail. The contention of the convict petitioner
is not true in the eyes of law because Hon’ble High Court heard
both the parties at length and passed a detailed order considering
all the facts and circumstances of the case. On the orders of
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court adequate medical facilities have
been provided to the convict petitioner. Presently his treatment is
going on at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. Prior
to this, the convict petitioner availed the medical treatment
outside Ranchi i.e. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Delhi and Asia Heart Institute, Mumbai. Hence, the contention of
the convict petitioner is denied.
39. That in reply to para 3, it is humbly submitted that the
averment made in this para is in the sole knowledge of convict
petitioner, hence no comment is required.
40. That para 4 is about the truthfulness of the Annexures
enclosed by the convict petitioner with his instant petition, hence
no comment is required.
Reply of the Grounds:-
41. That the grounds taken by the convict petitioner for relief
sought is not tenable in the eye of law. That all the allegations and
charges levelled against the convict petitioner have been proved
on the basis of irrefutable evidence collected during the
investigation, which were exhibited/ deposed before the Ld. Trial
Court during the trial and the same have undergone the legal
scrutiny by the Ld. Trial Court. The convict petitioner was given
ample opportunity during the trial of case to produce evidences in
his favour to prove his innocence. The Ld. Trial Court considered
all the facts and circumstances of the case and described the
evidence vis-a-vis role of each and every accused persons in its
order dated 23.12.2017 before awarding the sentences to the
accused persons on 06.01.2018. Hence, the ground taken by the
convict petitioner is supressio veri and suggestio falsi.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
42. That the grounds mentioned at para no. 5A is false and
misleading, hence denied. The Hon’ble High Court has already
considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the health conditions of the petitioner and rejected the petition of
the convict petitioner.
43. That the grounds mentioned at para no. 5B has already been
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
08.05.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2017 (State of
Jharkhand through SP, CBI Vs Sajal Chakraborty), 394 of 2017
(State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI Vs Lalu Prasad @ Lalu
Prasad Yadav) and 395 of 2017 (State of Jharkhand through SP,
CBI Vs Dr. Jagnnath Mishra).
44. That the grounds mentioned at para no. 5C is a matter of
record, hence requires no comment. It is further submitted that
the facts and circumstances of each and every cases are different,
hence the same principle cannot be applied in all the cases.
45. That the grounds taken in para no. 5D and 5E are
misleading, hence denied. It is submitted that apart from the
statement of approvers, there are other substantive and clinching
evidences on record against the convict petitioner, which were
duly considered by the Ld. Trial Court while convicting the
petitioner. In Para 157 to 161 of the Judgement, the Special Judge
clearly specified that he relied upon the statement of PWs and
exhibits in respect of the convict petitioner, which are other than
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
statement of approvers. That the case law quoted is not applicable
in this Case.
46. That with regard to the grounds mentioned at para no. 5F
are false and misleading, hence denied. It is further submitted
that it is a matter of record that the convict petitioner extended
the service period of Dr. Ramraj Ram and Dr. S.B. Sinha.
47. That as far as the grounds mentioned in Para- 5G
concerning petitioner directing for the registration 41 FIR on
31.01.1996, it is submitted that the alleged fraudulent
withdrawal had come into the knowledge of the petitioner much
earlier, i.e. in the year 1990. On the said direction of the
petitioner, cases were lodged against the District level officers and
private parties. But, when the Patna Hon’ble High Court ordered
for the detailed investigation into the allegation by the CBI, the
petitioner at the helm of affairs, appealed against the CBI
investigation order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, which was
rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.03.1996.
48. That the grounds mentioned in Para- 5H, it is submitted that
it is a matter of record. It is further submitted that the acquittal
of the convict petitioner in the DA Case has no bearing in this
Case.
49. That the grounds taken in Para - 5I is not tenable. It is
submitted that the convict petitioner was functioning as the Chief
Minister as well as the Finance Minister. He had the personal
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
knowledge of fraudulent and excess withdrawal from the
treasuries than the actual budgetary provisions. CBI has already
filed criminal appeals in Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi against the acquittal orders.
50. That the grounds mentioned in Para- 5J, it is submitted that
the Hon’ble High Court has already dealt the matter in its order
dated 10.01.2019. The referred order of Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court pertains to the discretion of the Court
regarding the grant of suspension of sentences. Such discretion
ought to be exercised on Case to Case basis with regard to all
relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble High
Court of Jharkhand have considered all the facts and
circumstances of the Case and has rightly rejected the petition of
the convict petitioner.
51. That the grounds mentioned in Para- 5K to 5 O, it is
submitted that on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand, the best medical facilities have been provided to the
convict petitioner, who is presently undergoing treatment at
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. Prior to
this, the convict petitioner availed the medical treatment outside
Ranchi i.e. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New
Delhi and Asia Heart Institute, Mumbai. Hence, the contentions
of the convict petitioner with regard to his medical condition are
denied. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 10.01.2019
has observed that the medical condition of the convict petitioner
is not life threatening. If any specialised treatment in future, will
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
depend on the evaluation and opinion of the doctors at RIMS,
Ranchi. The Hon’ble High Court has advised for continued
medical management and monitoring, which is being provided to
the petitioner. It is further submitted that at present the convict
petitioner is being treated in the private cottage at RIMS, Ranchi
and best of medical services is being provided to him.
52. That the Hon’ble High Court had asked for the status report
on the treatment of convict petitioner. The said status report
dated 28.12.2018 of RIMS, Ranchi on the treatment of convict
petitioner was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court. While
rejecting the petition of the petitioner on 10.01.2019, the Hon’ble
High Court observed that-
“doctors at RIMS would undertake the assessment of the medical condition of the appellant for the purposes of monitoring and medical management of his conditions. Whether any specialized treatment is required in future would depend on the evaluation and opinion of the doctors at RIMS Ranchi. In the medical report dated 28.12.2018 furnished by the doctors at RIMS on evaluation of his medical condition, the doctors have not suggested any specialized treatment outside Ranchi for the present.”
53. That the grounds mentioned in Para - 5P, it is submitted
that the Hon’ble High Court has already dealt the matter in its
order dated 10.01.2019. The referred order of Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court pertains to the discretion of the Court
regarding the grant of suspension of sentences. Such discretion
ought to be exercised on Case to Case basis with regard to all
relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble High
Court of Jharkhand have considered all the facts and
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
circumstances of the Case and has rightly rejected the petition of
the convict petitioner.
54. That the grounds mentioned in Para- 5Q, it is submitted that
it is a matter of record.
55. That the grounds mentioned in Para- 5R, 5S, 5T, 5U, 5V and
5W, it is submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the
Ld. Trial Court on the basis of substantive as circumstantial
evidences collected during the investigation. That only after
considering all the facts and circumstances of the Case, the
judgement was pronounced on 23.12.2017 and 06.01.2018
against the convict petitioner and others. That the role of accused
person has been described in detail in the Judgement in Para nos.
157 to 161 and the convict petitioner has been found guilty for
the charges levelled against him.
56. That with regard to the Para- 5X, it is submitted that is it
mere repetition of forgoing paras, which has already been replied.
57. That with regard to the Para - 5Y, it is submitted that the
petitioner is convicted in four cases of AHD Scam, hence the
contentions are denied.
58. That the ground taken in Para- 5Z is ill-founded that the bail
granted in the RC20(A)/96 cannot be a ground in this Case.
59. That the contention of Para- 5AA is matter on record.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
60. That with regard to the ground taken in Para 5BB, it is
submitted that the bail granted in the RC 20(A)/96-Pat. cannot
be a ground in this Case.
61. That the grounds mentioned in Para- 5CC, it is submitted
that it is a matter of law and legal scrutiny.
62. That the grounds mentioned in Para-5DD is false and
misleading, hence denied. The Special Judge in the judgement
dated 23.12.2017 in para 157 to 161, convicted the petitioner for
this charge also.
63. That the grounds mentioned in Para-EE is matter of record.
64. That the grounds mentioned in para no. 6A and 6B, it is
submitted that these are mere repetitions of foregoing paras.
65. That it is further submitted that the offence committed by
the convict petitioner is serious and grave in nature.
66. That with regard to the prayer at Para- 7 & 8 of the petition,
it is submitted that the petition of the convict petitioner is devoid
of any merit and liable to be rejected.
67. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is
submitted that no ground has been made out by the Petitioner
seeking any discretionary relief from this Hon'ble court under
article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present SLP is bereft
of merits and hence is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
68. No facts which were not pleaded before the Courts below
have been pleaded in the affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the deponent abovenamed, do hereby verify that the
contents of paras 1 to ___ of my above affidavit are true to my
knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom. The legal submission made therein are
based on the legal advice received.
Verified at __________ on this the ___ day of ___________,
2019.
DEPONENT
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)