New Delhi [India], December 18 : The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday reserved an order on the applications of former Bihar CM Rabri Devi seeking the transfer of cases against her and her family members.
She has sought transfer of CBI and ED cases linked with the IRCTC hotel tenders case and land for a job. The court is to pronounce an order tomorrow at 2 PM. Principal District and Session judge Dinesh Bhatt on Thursday reserved an order on pleas of Rabri Devi after receiving the comments of the concerned Judge who is hearing the cases.
After hearing the arguements of counsel for Rabri Devi, CBI and others at length, the court reserved the order for Friday. Rabri Devi has moved four pleas for the transfer of four matters linked with the IRCTC hotel corruption case and the Land for Job corruption cases pending before the special court.
During arguments, Senior Advocate on behalf of Rabri Devi submitted that they have no faith in the court hearing the case. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted demonstrates bias. He had also submitted that the bias was "observed, felt, and suffered. Biased is deliberate".
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh alongwith with Ekta Vats, Varun Jain and Navin Kumar for Rabri Devi. The high court earlier passed an order that no final order on the charge will be passed without hearing the accused persons on the point of sanction. The cognisance could not be taken as there was no sanction, the senior advocate had submitted.
"We had moved an application that the court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance, the same was kept pending. And charges framed against the applicant and others. My (Rabri Devi) life cannot be decided by a particular point of view of a judge," said the senior advocate.
Senior advocate had further submitted, "It was duty of the judge to not to curtail my right. My right was curtailed by keep pending my application. It was also submitted that during strike, adjournment were given in other cases, I (Rabri Devi) was compel to argue. What is special in this case?"
"The court waited till the election began in Bihar to pronounce order on charge. The entire Lalu family was made to come to Delhi to attend order on charge," a senior advocate submitted.
"In normal practice, accused are not asked to be present during order on charge. They are required to be present during framing of charges," senior counsel added.
He further submitted, "I as Rabri Devi don't expect fair trial from the court. Court is not following the dictum of the Supreme Court; I have no faith. If we don't have faith in the court than there is no point to argue. The court may cancel my bail for purportedly for delaying the trial.
"It is not a civil case, it is criminal case, the only result is the jail. If, I (Rabri Devi) will be convicted, will be sent to jail, I have no faith," senior advocate said.
Senior advocate Sadan Farasat argued on behalf of other accused who are respondents in the transfer application. It was submitted that the manner in which the proceedings took place itself shows the bias. Special public prosecutor (SPP) D P Singh, alongwith Manu Mishra appeared for the CBI. The applications were opposed by the CBI.
The special public prosecutor for CBI argued that the application is a forum-shopping exercise aimed at demeaning the judge and interfering with the administration of justice.
He also submitted that Rabri Devi's plea casts unwarranted aspersions on the judiciary and seeks to browbeat the trial court.
He had argued that the special judge had followed the procedure established by superior courts and consistent judicial practice, and that an accused cannot choose a forum or undermine a judicial officer because the proceedings are not going in their favour.
"You cannot bulldoze a court. You cannot go forum shopping. You cannot demean a judge," Singh told the court, asserting that such attempts directly affect the independence and dignity of the judicial process.
Responding to Rabri Devi's allegation that Judge Vishal Gogne deliberately delayed the order on framing of charges in the IRCTC corruption case to coincide with the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct for the Bihar elections, Singh said the claim was baseless.
He clarified that the court had only sought clarifications from the investigating agency, which was a legitimate judicial exercise.
"These clarifications were sought for the court's clarity and conscience. It is the duty of the judge to ask questions," Singh had submitted.
The CBI further contended that Rabri Devi's transfer plea was intended to delay the proceedings at a crucial stage. Referring to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Singh pointed out that arguments on the framing of charges must be concluded within 60 days. In contrast, more than two years have elapsed.
He emphasised that the inconvenience faced by an accused during trial cannot be a ground for seeking transfer of a case, and that such pleas undermine the dignity of the court and obstruct the course of justice.
Rabri Devi, in her plea, has sought the transfer of four cases pending before Judge Gogne, in which she and several of her family members are accused. These include the IRCTC scam case, the alleged land-for-jobs case, and the related money-laundering proceedings.
On October 13, Judge Gogne framed criminal charges against RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav and others in the IRCTC case.
In her transfer application, Rabri Devi has alleged that the special judge is biased and conducting the trials with a premeditated mind, claiming that he is "unduly inclined" towards the prosecution and that his conduct has created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The CBI has denied the allegations, terming them an attempt to scandalise the court and delay the trial.