However, Sibal insisted that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC empowers it to intervene. “Why should I go to the trial court when the very act of taking cognisance was flawed?” he said, contending that the charges are based on an investigation that should never have begun.Seeking a stay on the framing of charges, Sibal added, “If they have waited 14 years, surely they can wait one more month.”The CBI, for its part, argued that Yadav had abused his position as a public servant. Its counsel submitted that selections for railway jobs were manipulated under ministerial influence and land was accepted as quid pro quo. He stated, “The misuse of official position was apparent, making Section 19 of the PC Act applicable. We have complied with that.”In its plea, Yadav’s legal team claimed the entire case is politically driven and violates his fundamental right to a fair investigation. “The present atmosphere of regime revenge is exactly what Section 17A seeks to prevent. Without prior approval, the proceedings are void from the beginning,” as per the plea.Yadav contends that even the registration of the preliminary enquiry and the FIR was prohibited by Section 17A, as the allegations involve actions taken during his tenure as a public servant.The CBI filed its first chargesheet in the case on 10 October 2022, naming 16 accused, including Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and daughter Misa Bharti. The agency alleges that during Yadav’s tenure as Union Railways Minister (2004–2009), several people were appointed to Group-D posts across multiple railway zones in exchange for land transferred to Yadav’s family and a company later taken over by them.The matter will be heard next by the High Court on a date yet to be fixed.
Source link
