Land-for-job scam: Supreme Court refuses to stay trial court proceedings against Lalu

In a setback to former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the trial proceedings in the CBI’s land-for-jobs case.

Advertisement

A Bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, however, asked the Delhi High Court to expedite the hearing on the RJD president’s petition seeking quashing of the CBI FIR.

The top court gave exemption to Prasad from personal appearance before trial court in the case.

Noting that there was no compelling reason to stay the trial proceedings, the high court had on May 29 issued notice to the CBI on his plea for quashing of the CBI FIR and deferred the hearing to August 12. He had challenged the May 29 order of the high court.

The case related to Group D appointments in West Central Zone of the Indian Railways, Jabalpur during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as the Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels ‘gifted’ by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo’s family or associates.

The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. The former chief minister said the FIR was lodged in 2022 -- almost a 14-year delay—despite the CBI’s initial enquiries and investigations being closed after filing of closure report before the competent court.

However, Yadav called it “regime revenge and political vendetta” as the initiation of investigation without such approval vitiated the entire proceedings since inception with the being a “jurisdictional error”.

He contended that “Initiation of the fresh investigation in the concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”.

In his petition in the high court, Prasad sought the quashing of the FIR and three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the subsequent orders of cognisance. He submitted that he was being made to suffer through an “illegal, motivated investigation” in violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation.