The Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the Jharkhand High Court to grant bail to Lalu Prasad Yadav, the former Chief Minister of Bihar, in the Deoghar fodder scam case. The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale, dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against the bail order, emphasizing their decision not to interfere with the High Court’s judgment while urging a swift resolution of the main appeals.
The court stated, “We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order granting bail. The appeal is of the year 2018. It will only be appropriate to request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the appeal, preferably within 6 months. Disposed of. The legal issue is kept open.” This statement highlights the court’s focus on ensuring expedient legal proceedings.
Background and Legal Proceedings
Lalu Prasad Yadav was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment in December 2017 after being convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The convictions were related to the embezzlement of ₹89 lakh from the Deoghar Treasury between 1991 and 1994 while he served as the Chief Minister of Bihar. A special CBI court in Ranchi had delivered the verdict against him.
In July 2019, the Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Yadav, suspending his sentence in one of the fodder scam cases. The CBI then approached the Supreme Court in February 2020, challenging the High Court’s decision to suspend Yadav’s sentence without any significant change in circumstances.
Arguments Presented in Court
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the CBI, argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect, stating, “The issue now is subsequently the High Court grants bail on the ground that he has completed 50% of the sentence which is factually incorrect. Without considering the fact it’s not a concurrent sentence, it suspends the sentence and grants him bail. This can’t be done. The yardstick applied is wrong. He has delayed the trial.”
More Read
In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, defending Yadav, countered the CBI’s claims by explaining, “This whole argument that he should have undergone the first sentence then the second sentence is completely wrong. The judge has applied a uniform yardstick. It’s the discretion of the judge.”
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the High Court’s bail order, allowing Yadav to remain out on bail while the main appeals are expedited.
