IN the SUPREME COURT of INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO

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

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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. Total No. of Cases Number Amount Sentence to the No. related to Lalu Yadav of Involved Petitioner Accused Convicts 1 RC20(A)/96-Pat 46 37.70 R.I for 05 years and Date of Judgement:- Crores fine of Rs. 25 lakhs 30.09.2013. in default to further Name of Treasury:- undergo R.I. for six Chiabasa months. Period of offence:- 1994- Released on bail on 95 13.12.2013 2 RC38(A)/96-Pat. 19 Rs.3.76 R.I for 14 [7+7] SLP Crl 2951/2019 Crores years and fine of Rs. 60 lakhs in default Date of Judgement:- to further undergo R.I. for 2 19.03.2018. years. Name of Treasury:- Dumka Period of offence:- 1995 to 1996

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

3 RC64(A)/96-Pat. 18 Rs. 89 R.I for 3.5 years SLP Crl 2219/2019 Lakhs and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in default to Date of Judgement:- further undergo R.I. 23.12.2017. for 6 months. Name of Treasury:- Deoghar Note:- A Criminal Period of offence:- 1991- Appeal for 94 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. 50 Rs.33.13 R.I for 5 years and Crores fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in SLP Crl 2447/2019 default to further Date of Judgement:- undergo R.I. for 01 24.01.2018. year Name of Treasury:- Chaibasa Period of offence:- 1992- 93

5 RC47(A)/96-Pat NA Rs.139 Under Trial Case, Crores stage Prosecution Evidence. 6 RC63(A)/96-Pat NA Rs. 45 -do- Lakhs

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. Total No. of Period in Period in jail Period in hospital after No. Cases related jail before after conviction as on date of filing to Lalu Yadav conviction conviction of Counter Affidavit 1. RC38(A)/96- 12 ½ NIL. [8 1/2 months app.] 19.03.2018 Pat. months to till date except parole period SLP Crl app from 11.05.2018 to 13.05.2018 2951/2019 and provisional bail period from 16.05.2018 to 29.08.2018.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

R.I for 14 [7+7] years

2. RC64(A)/96- 11 ½ 3 months app [8 1/2 months app.] Pat. months 17.03.2018 to till date except SLP Crl app parole period from 11.05.2018 to 2219/2019 13.05.2018 and provisional bail R.I for 3.5 period from 16.05.2018 to years 29.08.2018

3. RC68(A)/96- 2 months 2 ½ months [8 1/2 months app.] Pat. app. 17.03.2018 to till date except parole period from 11.05.2018 to SLP Crl 13.05.2018 and provisional bail 2447/2019 period from 16.05.2018 to 29.08.2018 R.I for 5 years

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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. Date Total Name of Visitors No. Number 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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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:-

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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:

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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. Total No. of Cases Number Amount Sentence to the No. related to Lalu Yadav of Involved Petitioner Accused Convicts 1 RC20(A)/96-Pat 46 37.70 R.I for 05 years and Date of Judgement:- Crores fine of Rs. 25 lakhs 30.09.2013. in default to further Name of Treasury:- undergo R.I. for six Chiabasa months. Period of offence:- 1994- 95 2 RC38(A)/96-Pat. 19 Rs.3.76 R.I for 14 years Crores [7+7] and fine of Rs. Date of Judgement:- 60 lakhs in default 19.03.2018. to further undergo R.I. for 2 Name of Treasury:- years. Dumka Period of offence:- 1995 to 1996

3 RC64(A)/96-Pat. 18 Rs. 89 R.I for 3.5 years Date of Judgement:- Lakhs and fine of Rs. 5 23.12.2017. lakhs in default to Name of Treasury:- further undergo R.I. Deoghar for 6 months. Period of offence:- 1991- 94 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. 50 Rs.33.13 R.I for 5 years and Date of Judgement:- Crores fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in 24.01.2018. default to further Name of Treasury:- undergo R.I. for 01 Chaibasa year Period of offence:- 1992- 93

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

5 RC47(A)/96-Pat NA Rs.139 Under Trial Case, Crores stage Prosecution Evidence. 6 RC63(A)/96-Pat NA Rs. 45 -do- Lakhs

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:-

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Sl. Total No. of Cases SLP No Relevant para of No. related to Lalu Yadav the judgment 2 RC38(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2451/2019 Para 110-114 R.I for 14 years [7+7] @pg 207-211

3 RC 64(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2219/2019 Para -157-167 Pg 208-224 R.I for 3.5 years

4 RC 68(A)/96-Pat. SLP Crl 2447/2019 Pg 337 R.I for 5 years

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]

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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. Name Designation/Status No. The then Regional Director, 1. Dr. Shesh Muni Ram AHD, Ranchi, 2. Dr. Vinay Kumar The then DAHO, Deoghar 3. Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad The then Veterinary Officer Shri Tripurari Mohan Prasad The then Supplier/Private 4. Prop. of M/s Bihar Surgico- Party Medico Agency Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha Prop. The then Supplier/Private 5. of M/s Baba Chemical Works Party Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, The then Supplier/Private 6. Prop. of M/s Sanjay Kumar Party Shri Sushil Kumar Jha, MD The then Supplier/Private 7. M/s Sri Gauri Distributor Party Smt. Sarswati Chandra, Porp. The then Supplier/Private 8. of M.s S.R. Enterprises Party Shri Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, The then Supplier/Private 9. Prop. of M/s Bhagat & Co. Party Shri Gopi Nath Das, Prop. of The then Supplier/Private 10. M/s Radha Pharmacy Party Shri O.P. Gupta, Prop. of M/s The then Supplier/Private 11. O.P. Gupta Party Shri Jyoti Kumar Jha, Prop. of The then Supplier/Private 12. M/s Seva Medical Agencies Party

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Shri Sushil Kumar, M/s The then Supplier/Private 13. Samarpan Veterinary Party Enterprises Smt. Usha Singh Prop. of M/s The then Supplier/Private 14. Usha Pharma Party Shri Sunil Gandhi, Prop. of The then Supplier/Private 15. M/s Magadh Distributors Party The then Joint Regional 16. Dr. Shayam Bihar Sinha Director, AHD, Ranchi The then Accounts Officer, 17. Shri Braj Bushan Prasad AHD, Bihar The then Administrative 18. Shri Raghvendra Kishore Das Officer, AHD, Patna 19. Dr. Ram Raj Ram The then Director, AHD, Patna IAS, the then Secretary, AHD, 20. Shri Mahesh Prasad Govt. of Bihar IAS, the then Secretary, AHD, 21. Shri Beck Julius Govt. of Bihar 22. Shri Bhola Ram Tofani The then Minister, AHD, Patna Shri Chandradeo Prasad Ex. Minister, AHD, Govt. of 23. Verma Bihar 24. Shri Jagdish Sharma MLA, the then PAC, Bihar Shri Lalu Prasad @ Lalu 25. Ex. CM, Bihar Prasad Yadav 26. Shri K. Arumugham IAS, the then Secretary AHD IAS, The then Finance 27. Shri Phul Chand Singh Commissioner/ Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar 28. Shri Vidya Sagar Nishad The then Minister, AHD, Bihar Ex.CM/ the then leader of 29. Dr. Jagannath Mishra opposition, Bihar MLA, the Chairman Public 30. Shri Dhrub Bhagat Accounts Committee, Bihar Patna 31. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana MLA, IRS, the then Commissioner, 32. Shri A.C. Choudhary 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:-

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Sl. Name Designation/Status No. 1. Shri Shiv Kumar Patwari Private Person 2. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma Private Person 3. Shri Rajo Singh MLA, Bihar 4. Shri Subir Kumar The then Treasury Officer, Bhattacharya 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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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:-

Name of Sl. the Sent Sections Fine in Rs. No. accused ence persons 120B, 420, 467, 10,00,000/-, in default 7 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine one Shri years IPC year. 1. Jagdish r/w Sec. 13 (2) 10,00,000/-, in default Sharma 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine one years P.C. Act, 1988. year. 120B, 420, 467, 10,00,000/-, in default 7 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine one Dr. Krishna years IPC year. 2. Kumar r/w Sec. 13 (2) 10,00,000/-, in default Prasad 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine one years P.C. Act, 1988. year.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Shri 120B, 420, 467, 10,00,000/-, in default Tripurari 7 3. 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine one Mohan years IPC year. Prasad 120B, 420, 467, 7 10,00,000/-, in default Shri Sunil 4. 468, 471, 477A years of payment of fine one Gandhi IPC year. 120B, 420, 467, Shri Sanjay 7 10,00,000/-, in default 468, 471, 477A 5. Kumar years of payment of fine one IPC Agarwal year.

120B, 420, 467, 7 10,00,000/-, in default Shri Gopi 468, 471, 477A 6. years of payment of fine one Nath Das IPC year.

120B, 420, 467, 7 10,00,000/-, in default Shri Jyoti 468, 471, 477A 7. years of payment of fine one Kumar Jha IPC year.

120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six Shri Lalu years IPC months. 8. Prasad r/w Sec. 13 (2) 5,00,000/-, in default Yadav, 3.5 r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine six years P.C. Act, 1988. months. 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 Dr. 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six years Rabindra IPC months. 9. Kumar r/w Sec. 13 (2) 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 Rana r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine six years P.C. Act, 1988. months. 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six Shri years IPC months. 10. Phulchand r/w Sec. 13 (2) 5,00,000/-, in default Singh 3.5 r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine six years P.C. Act, 1988. months. 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six Shri years IPC months. 11. Mahesh r/w Sec. 13 (2) 5,00,000/-, in default Prasad 3.5 r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine six years P.C. Act, 1988. months. 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default of Shri Beck 3.5 12. 468, 471, 477A payment of fine six Julius years IPC months.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

r/w Sec. 13 (2) 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine six years P.C. Act, 1988. months. 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six Shri Subir years Kumar IPC months. 13. Bhattachary r/w Sec. 13 (2) 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 a r/w 13 (1) (d) of of payment of fine six years P.C. Act, 1988. months. Shri 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default Rajendra 3.5 14. 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six Prasad years IPC months. Sharma 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default Shri Sushil 3.5 15. 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six Kumar years IPC months. Shri Sunil 120B, 420, 467, 5,00,000/-, in default 3.5 16. Kumar 468, 471, 477A of payment of fine six years Sinha IPC months.

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

Sl. Name Designation/Status No. Dr. Jagannath Ex. CM/the then Leader of 1. Mishra Opposition, Bihar 2. Vidya Sagar Nishad The then Minister, AHD, Bihar MLA, the Chairman Public Accounts 3. Dhrub Bhagat Committee, Bihar Patna Adhip Chandra IRS the then Commissioner, Income 4. Choudhary Tax, Ranchi Smt. Sarswati Private Party 5. Chandra 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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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 the convict petitioner.

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

Court of Jharkhand have considered all the facts and

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

circumstances of the Case and has rightly rejected the petition of the convict petitioner.

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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.

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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