Alleged Land-for-Jobs scam: CBI court slams co-accused for 'contrived' bid to delay case

Economic Times

3 days ago

Synopsis
A special CBI court rebuked an accused in the land-for-jobs scandal, Ram Ashish Singh, for attempting to delay the framing of charges. Singh sought to exclude a letter he wrote to the CBI, claiming it was a confessional statement. The court dismissed his application, viewing it as a tactic to avoid arguments on the charges against him.
IANS New Delhi: A special CBI court has chided a co-accused allegedly involved in the land-for-jobs scandal for moving an application in a "contrived manner" to avoid arguments on framing of charges against him.As reported by ET, a special court here is conducting day-to-day hearing on the framing of charges against the accused involved in the alleged scandal. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charge sheeted the then Union Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, sons Tejashwi and Tej Pratap Yadav, daughters Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav in the said case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Around 84 of the 99 total accused have concluded their arguments opposing the framing of charges. These include Tejashwi, Tej Pratap Yadav and others.
A local court, in an order passed last week, came down heavily on Ram Ashish Singh for moving an application to "delay" the proceedings of the case. The dispute in question pertains to a letter dated June 27, 2022 relied upon by the CBI vide which the accused, a principal of a school in Bihar, had responded to CBI's query revealing that few job aspirants had procured forged mark sheets and transfer certificates to secure jobs in the Railway Department. The accused moved court seeking deletion or exclusion of the said document from CBI's charge sheet on the ground that it is in the nature of a "confessional statement". The same was strongly opposed by CBI.
Refusing to entertain the plea the court, in its order dated August 8, came down heavily on the accused. The CBI court held that "the court finds the insistence of the counsel for accused upon the application being decided before he may lead other arguments to be a conscious ploy to seek a truncated and piecemeal as well as premature finding from the court on issues relating to the charge". More so, the order reads, "when the document in question is a letter from the accused to the investigating officer and is not cited as a confession or a disclosure statement by the CBI. The heightened insistence of the counsel is perceived by the court as a disguise for delay".Refusing to grant any relief, the court ruled that "the court is therefore not inclined to allow the prayer for a standalone order to be pronounced on the present application which calls upon the court to first reach a finding as to whether the said letter sent by accused to the IO, is a confessional statement and then disregard it. When the charge itself is not contemplated as a mini trial, no such exercise can be conducted for appreciating the tenor or admissibility of a document even prior to an order on charge".The court held that "being conscious that any eager, animated or inflexible assertion of the counsel ought not to prejudice the accused, the court would refrain from making further observations regarding the contrived manner in which the application has been moved so as to avoid arguments on charge on other aspects".