RJD chief Lalu Yadav. File Photo
By Neeraj Kumar
Patna: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to cancel the bail granted to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in a fodder scam case, rejecting the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to revoke his bail and lift the stay on his sentence. The apex court, however, directed the Jharkhand High Court to expedite the hearing of Yadav’s pending appeal against his conviction, preferably within six months, noting that he had remained on bail for the past eight years.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented Yadav.
The Bench observed that Yadav had been on bail for nearly eight years and said it was not inclined to interfere with the Jharkhand High Court’s order granting him relief. Instead, the court emphasised the need for an early disposal of the main appeals filed by both Yadav and the CBI against the trial court’s judgment.
Noting that the appeal had been pending since 2018, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear Yadav’s appeal against his conviction on a priority basis, preferably within six months.
During the hearing, ASG Raju argued that applications seeking suspension of Yadav’s sentence had earlier been rejected on merit. He contended that the High Court had granted bail on the erroneous assumption that Yadav had completed 50 per cent of his sentence.
Raju further submitted that the High Court had incorrectly calculated the period of imprisonment and that Yadav was required to serve his sentences consecutively rather than concurrently. He argued that the trial court had erred in concluding that the former Bihar Chief Minister had completed half of his sentence.
Countering the submissions, Kapil Sibal argued that the contention that Yadav should have completed one sentence before commencing another was legally untenable. He maintained that the trial judge had exercised judicial discretion consistently and that the approach adopted was entirely within the court’s authority.
Sibal further submitted that Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs concurrent and consecutive sentences, applies only at the stage of final adjudication and not while considering interim suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The Bench indicated that it was more inclined to fast-track the pending appeal rather than revisit the order granting bail. It observed that the focus should be on ensuring an early hearing of the appeal rather than interfering with the High Court’s order. When the Bench suggested expediting the appeal, Sibal told the court that he had no objection if such a direction was issued.
The central agency has also challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s October 2020 order granting bail to Yadav in connection with the fraudulent withdrawal of ₹37.62 crore from the Deoghar Treasury during 1992-93. The CBI has argued that the High Court wrongly applied the “half-sentence” principle while granting him bail.
About the Author
