Download - in the supreme court of india

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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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:-


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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:-


Sl. No.


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]


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


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.


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.


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


Party

6. Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal,

Prop. of M/s Sanjay Kumar


Party

7. Shri Sushil Kumar Jha, MD

M/s Sri Gauri Distributor


Party

8. Smt. Sarswati Chandra, Porp.

of M.s S.R. Enterprises


Party

9. Shri Pramod Kumar Jaiswal,

Prop. of M/s Bhagat & Co.


Party

10. Shri Gopi Nath Das, Prop. of

M/s Radha Pharmacy


Party

11. Shri O.P. Gupta, Prop. of M/s

O.P. Gupta


Party

12. Shri Jyoti Kumar Jha, Prop. of

M/s Seva Medical Agencies


Party


13.

Shri Sushil Kumar, M/s

Samarpan Veterinary

Enterprises


Party

14. Smt. Usha Singh Prop. of M/s

Usha Pharma


Party

15. Shri Sunil Gandhi, Prop. of

M/s Magadh Distributors


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:-


Sl.


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.


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.


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


year.

2.

Dr. Krishna

Kumar

Prasad

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


year.

r/w Sec. 13 (2)

r/w 13 (1) (d) of

P.C. Act, 1988.

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


year.


3.

Shri

Tripurari

Mohan

Prasad

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


year.

4. Shri Sunil

Gandhi

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


year.

5.

Shri Sanjay

Kumar

Agarwal

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


year.

6. Shri Gopi

Nath Das

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


year.

7. Shri Jyoti

Kumar Jha

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

7

years

10,00,000/-, in default


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


of payment of fine six months.

9.

Dr.

Rabindra

Kumar

Rana

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

3.5

years


of payment of fine six

months.

r/w Sec. 13 (2)

r/w 13 (1) (d) of

P.C. Act, 1988.

3.5

years



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


11.

Shri

Mahesh

Prasad

120B, 420, 467,

468, 471, 477A

IPC

3.5

years



months.

r/w Sec. 13 (2)

r/w 13 (1) (d) of

P.C. Act, 1988.

3.5

years



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.


r/w Sec. 13 (2)

r/w 13 (1) (d) of

P.C. Act, 1988.

3.5

years



months.

13.

Shri Subir Kumar

Bhattacharya

120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC

3.5 years


r/w Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

3.5 years


14.

Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma

120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC

3.5 years


15. Shri Sushil

Kumar

120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC

3.5 years


16. Shri Sunil

Kumar Sinha

120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC

3.5 years


5. That Ld. Spl. Judge acquitted following 6 accused persons:-

Sl.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


circumstances of the Case and has rightly rejected the petition of


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.


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.


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
