The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea filed by Lalu Yadav’s aide Bhola Yadav alleging that the approver statements in the alleged Railways land-for-jobs case were recorded in violation of the procedure, making them invalid.
Justice Manoj Jain ordered that a copy of the trial court’s order of today framing charge in the case should also be placed on record and that the matter will be heard next on January 27.
Bhola Yadav is the national general secretary of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and a close associate of Lalu Yadav. He is co-accused in the land-for-jobs case along with Lalu Yadav's family and was charged with criminal offences by a Delhi court today.
Bhola Yadav approached the High Court, arguing that the CBI’s case is based on the five approver statements, but those were recorded in violation of the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), making them invalid.
It is his case that the approvers were pardoned after recording their statements before the magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC. However, the law established says that approvers should be pardoned first, and the recording of the statement should follow.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Maninder Singh appeared for Yadav today and stated that the only evidence against Bhola Yadav and others in the case is the approver statement.
“The horse has to be before the cart, and the procedure has to be followed word by word. The procedure is that if I am an accused, I have to be granted a pardon under Section 306(4) [CrPC], and then the statement can be recorded. Here it’s the opposite,” Singh submitted.
He added that these details were kept in a sealed cover and not shown to the accused till they discovered it and asked to look at them.
The Court asked Singh whether there is any legal bar on recording the statement prior to granting a pardon.
“What prejudice is caused to a person if the statement is recorded and granted pardon? Let me tell you, I personally think it is always better to grant pardon when the statement is before the court,” Justice Jain remarked.
However, Singh said that adopting such a procedure may lead to a quid pro quo between the prosecuting agency and an accused/approver.
“There can be a quid pro quo. That is what has been deprecated in the judgments,” he said.
Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) DP Singh appeared for the CBI and said that the pardons were granted in the case strictly in terms of the provisions of the CrPC.
The Court then asked him to file a short note in the matter and said both sides can argue the matter on the next date of hearing.