Today, On 9th January, The Delhi High Court issued notice to the CBI on Bhola Yadav’s plea alleging illegality in recording approver statements in the Railways land for jobs case. Justice Manoj Jain sought the trial court’s charge order and listed hearing on January 27.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding a plea from Bhola Yadav, an aide to Lalu Yadav.
Yadav’s petition argues that the statements from approvers in the alleged Railways land for jobs case were taken improperly, rendering them invalid.
Justice Manoj Jain directed that a copy of today’s trial court order regarding the charges in the case be included in the records, scheduling the next hearing for January 27.
Also Read: Land-for-Job Scam: Court Defers Order on Framing Charges Against Lalu Yadav
Bhola Yadav, who serves as the national general secretary of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and is closely associated with Lalu Yadav, is a co-accused in this land for jobs case along with members of Lalu Yadav’s family. Today, he was charged with criminal offenses by a Delhi court.
In his appeal to the High Court, Yadav contends that the CBI’s case revolves around five approver statements, which he claims were taken in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), thus invalidating them.
He asserts that approvers should be granted pardons prior to their statements being recorded, in accordance with legal standards under Section 164 of the CrPC.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Maninder Singh represented Yadav in court and emphasized that the only evidence against Bhola Yadav and others derives from these approver statements.
Singh argued that,
“The horse has to be before the cart, and the procedure has to be followed word by word. The procedure is that if I am an accused, I have to be granted a pardon under Section 306(4) of CrPC, and then the statement can be recorded. Here it’s the opposite,”
He also noted that certain details were kept in a sealed cover and were not made available to the accused until they discovered them.
Also Read: Tej Pratap, Hema Yadav, and Others Granted Bail in Land-for-Job Scam Case
When asked by the court if there was any legal restriction on recording statements before granting a pardon, Justice Jain commented,
“What prejudice is caused to a person if the statement is recorded and granted pardon? Let me tell you, I personally think it is always better to grant pardon when the statement is before the court.”
In response, Singh warned that such practices could lead to a quid pro quo arrangement between the prosecution and an accused/approver.
He said,
“There can be a quid pro quo. That is what has been deprecated in the judgments,”
Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) DP Singh represented the CBI, stating that all pardons in the case were granted in strict accordance with the provisions of the CrPC.
The court instructed him to prepare a short note on the matter, allowing both sides to present their arguments at the next hearing.