Coalgate: Jindal Realty moves Supreme Court for transfer of case from Judge Bharat Parashar to another court

Jindal Realty Limited has approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of one of the cases in the Coalgate matter from the court of Special Judge Bharat Parashar to another competent court. .The prayer has been made with respect to case no. 44 of 2016 titled CBI v. JSPL & Ors..The matter arises from the prosecution pertaining to Coal allocation made by the Central government Amarkonda Murgadangal block in Jharkhand. .In this case, the CBI had registered an FIR in 2013 alleging irregularities in coal block allocation to Jindal Steel and Power Limited. The CBI filed a chargesheet alleging irregularities in the allocation process and also in relation to an alleged quid pro quo. .Trial began before Special Judge Bharat Parashar, before whom all Coalgate cases were placed pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court. .The petitioner has stated that certain peculiar circumstances have arisen which gives rise to reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it shall not be in a position to receive fair trial in the court of Bharat Parashar..The petitioner has submitted that on April 21, 2016, eight days prior to the Special Judge pronouncing his order on the point of charge, there were significant interactions between respondent No. 2, the Prosecutor and the Judge. These interactions were conducted in the context of formal applications by the respondent no. 2, Suresh Singhal but without notice to any of other accused persons including the petitioner..The petitioner has further alleged that some of those interactions took place within the chambers of the judge without the presence of the prosecutor, the accused or their counsel as well as to the exclusion of the Investigating CBI officer..Interaction between respondent no. 2, Suresh Singhal and judge in chamber.The petition relies on the order sheet of April 21 regarding the interaction between the judge and Suresh Singhal..As per the petition the Special Judge reached his chambers on April 21 at around 9.50 am and was given two applications filed by Singhal:.Application for making a disclosure statement; Application for police protection..In his application for disclosure statement, Singhal resiled from his earlier statement and supported the CBI case by stating that the investment of Rs. 2 crore through his company M/s Exim was not a genuine commercial transaction but was done at the behest of Jindal Group as illegal gratification for allotment of coal block. .The case of CBI v. JSPL & Ors. was not listed that day. Despite the same, when the court proceedings for that day were over at 11 am, the Special Judge called Singhal to the dias after asking all the parties to exit the court room except the court staff and the prosecutor..“…for all intent and purposes, the Ld. Judge held “in-camera” proceedings to the exclkusion of other parties or members of the public in derogation of Section 327 CrPC…”.The judge then asked Singhal what he wished to disclose whereupon Singhal started crying and requested to be taken alone inside the chamber of the judge, the petition states. The Prosecutor also consented to the same and the judge acceded to the request. .In the chamber, Singhal reiterated the contents of his application regarding the investment of Rs. 2 crore. .Thereafter, the Prosecutor urged Singhal to make a formal application for pardon. Singhal agreed and submitted a handwritten application seeking pardon and permission to become a government approver. .The details of what transpired on April 21 became known to the other accused persons subsequently. .Subsequent events and grant of pardon to Suresh Singhal.On April 23, 2016, Singhal was directed to be send to the Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 of CrPC before his application for pardon was considered. .His 164 statement was recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate SS Lamba wherein Singhal resiled from his earlier statement and supported the case of the prosecution. .All of these came to be known to the petitioner and other accused on April 29 when the Special Judge pronounced a detailed order on charge. By the said order, all the accused persons including Suresh Singhal were charged for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act. .This order was passed despite the pendency of the application for pardon filed by Singhal..Subsequently, on May 13 the Prosecutor informed the Court that Singhal in his statement recorded under CrPC had not made a full and true disclosure and had admittedly made a self-exculpatory statement. Despite the same, the court proceeded to direct further investigation. .By an order passed on July 11, the Special Judge allowed the application of Singhal and granted pardon to him and made him government approver. .Pursuant to further investigation, the Court arraigned additional accused and framed changes against the accused persons on July 13, 2018. .Judge should remain aloof.The petitioner has contended that it is apprehensive that Singhal was effectively advised and guided by the Special Judge and the Prosecutor. .“It is further strange that all these proceedings were happening without the notice or involvement of the Investigating Officer who was not even in court since the matter was not listed on that day”, the petition states. .It is the argument of the petitioner that when a court is seized of an application for pardon of an erstwhile accused, it should be conscious of its obligation towards other accused persons and ensure that their interests are not jeopardized. .In such case, the court/ judge should remain aloof since the grant of pardon is essentially between the prosecution and the accused/ approver. .Prayers.Jindal has prayed that the case no. 44 of 2016 titled CBI v. JSPL & Ors. be transferred from Judge Bharat Parashar to another competent court. .The petitioner has also prayed that all the orders passed by the Special Judge in the case including the orders of 21st April, 2016, 29th April, 2016, 13th May, 2016, 11th July, 2016 and the order framing charges passed on 13th July 2018 be quashed. .Matter to be listed before Coal Bench.The petition came up for hearing last week before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer. The Bench ordered that the case be listed before the Special Bench hearing the Coalgate matter as and when it is constituted..The Coalgate matter was being heard by a Bench presided by Justice Madan Lokur. However, with the retirement of Justice Lokur, the new Bench is yet to be constituted..Read the Petition: