Today, On 13th December, The CBI opposed Rabri Devi’s plea seeking transfer of criminal cases involving her family from Judge Vishal Gogne. It told the court, “You can’t bulldoze a court, go forum shopping, or demean a judge,” strongly resisting the move.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) contested former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi’s request on for the transfer of criminal cases involving her and her family from Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts to another judge.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh, representing the CBI, asserted that Devi had made disparaging remarks about the judiciary, emphasizing that Judge Gogne was adhering to established procedures in handling the case.
While addressing Principal District and Sessions Judge Dinesh Bhatt, who was evaluating Rabri Devi’s petition, He remarked,
“You can’t bulldoze a court, you can’t go forum shopping, you can’t demean a judge,”
Earlier, Former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi submitted a plea to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Courts, requesting the transfer of four cases from the judge who has framed charges against her and her family members in the alleged IRCTC scam.
In her application, Devi is seeking the transfer of these four cases pending before Judge Gogne, which include the IRCTC scam case, the alleged cash-for-jobs case, and related money laundering proceedings.
The CBI refuted these claims. Addressing Rabri Devi’s assertion that Judge Gogne pronounced the order on charges in both Hindi and English, subsequently soliciting their pleas to attract unnecessary public scrutiny, DP Singh countered that the judge was merely fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities.
He stated,
“It is the duty of the court to read and explain to the accused the charges framed against them and then ask whether they plead guilty or not… How else is a court supposed to ask this question? Is it a circumstance that will show personal bias or is a circumstance showing that a judge is fulfilling the duty cast on him?”
Singh also disputed the allegation that Judge Gogne had intentionally postponed the order on charges in the IRCTC scam to align with the implementation of the model code of conduct for the Bihar elections, explaining that the Court was seeking clarifications from the agency on various aspects of the case, which was essential for the judge’s understanding.
Singh remarked,
“How many times has my lord sought clarifications? Because that is for my lord’s clarity. It is for the clarity of the judge and his conscience that he was asking the questions,”
The proceedings in this case will resume on December 15.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented Rabri Devi, while Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh acted for the CBI.
Previously, on October 13, Judge Gogne had framed charges against Lalu Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and others in the IRCTC case.
Rabri Devi has claimed that the judge demonstrates bias, alleging that he conducts the trials against her and her family with a “premeditated mind.”
Her plea states that the judge is “unduly inclined” toward the prosecution.
She argues,
“That the conduct of the Ld. Special Judge, on various occasions during the course of proceedings in all the above mentioned cases, appears to be unduly inclined towards the prosecution and bias which can be seen from a number of instances of the case proceedings/orders itself, which has created a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the Applicant and in the interest of just, equity and fair play the cases needs to be transferred to some other court of the competent jurisdiction.”
According to Devi, the judge’s actions undermine the expected neutrality and have established a “reasonable likelihood of bias” in her view.
She emphasizes that her concerns are grounded in specific incidents that have occurred during the proceedings in the cases where she is an accused.
In the IRCTC case, the CBI claims that Lalu Yadav and his family accepted prime land and shares as bribes for awarding contracts to a private firm while he was the Union Railway Minister. Charges have been framed against the Yadav family in this matter.
Additionally, the cash-for-jobs case alleges that during Lalu Yadav’s tenure, various residents of Bihar were granted jobs after transferring their land to Yadav and his family members.
The ED is pursuing allegations of money laundering against Yadav and his family in connection with these cases.
Click Here to Read More Reports On IRCTC Scam Case