IRCTC hotel and land for job case: Delhi Court rejects Rabri Devi's plea for transfer of cases

Principal District and Session Judge Dinesh Bhat dismissed the pleas of Rabri Devi after receiving the comments of the Judge hearing the cases.

After hearing the arguements of counsel for Rabri Devi, CBI and others at length, the court reserved the order on Thursday. A detailed judgment is yet to be uploaded by the court.

Rabri Devi has moved four pleas seeking the transfer of four matters linked to the IRCTC hotel corruption case and the Land for Job corruption cases, which are pending before the special court.

During arguments, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, on behalf of Rabri Devi, had 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. "Biasness is deliberate."

Senior advocate Maninder Singh is 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 question of sanction. The cognisance could not be taken as there was no sanction, the senior advocate had submitted.

We moved an application that the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognisance of, and the same was kept pending. And charges framed against the applicant and others, the senior advocate argued."A particular point of view of a judge cannot decide Rabri Devi's life."

Senior advocate had further submitted that it was the duty of the judge not to curtail my client's right. "The right was curtailed by retaining my client's application."

It was also submitted that, during the strike, adjournments were granted in other cases, and that Rabri Devi was compelled to argue. "What is special in this case?"

The court waited until the Bihar election began before issuing an order on the charge. The entire Lalu family was made to come to Delhi to attend the order on charge, the senior advocate submitted.

In standard practice, accused are not asked to be present during the order on charge. They are required to be present during the framing of charges, senior counsel added.

He further submitted that "I, as Rabri Devi, don't expect a fair trial from the court. The court is not following the Supreme Court's dictum; I have no confidence."

Senior counsel also submitted that "if we don't have faith in the court, then there is no point in arguing." "The court may cancel my bail for purportedly delaying the trial."

It is not a civil case; it is a criminal case, and the only result is jail. If Rabri Devi is convicted, she will be imprisoned, a 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) DP Singh, alongwith Manu Mishra, appeared for the CBI. The CBI opposed the applications.

The special public prosecutor for the CBI argued that the application is a forum-shopping exercise intended to demean the judge and interfere 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. (ANI)