The Supreme Court rejected the plea submitted by Lalu Prasad Yadav, who had sought to quash the FIR registered by the CBI on Monday.
This comes after his earlier attempt to obtain a stay on the lower court proceedings was also dismissed by the apex court.
In his petition, Lalu Prasad Yadav argued that the CBI launched a fresh investigation despite a previous inquiry and closure report, which, he claimed, constituted an abuse of legal procedures.
He further alleged that the entire action was politically motivated and designed to harass him.
The Delhi High Court, in its 29 May order, held that there was no substantial ground to halt the ongoing proceedings.
The court has fixed the next date of hearing for 12 August, when it will further deliberate on the matter.
Legal experts observe that this case carries weight beyond the immediate allegations, as it underscores critical questions about the correct application of legal provisions and adherence to due process.
CBI Investigation and Charges
According to the CBI’s final supplementary chargesheet, 78 individuals have been named as accused in the case. These include 38 candidates and several government officials.
On March 6, the agency filed its third supplementary chargesheet. It named Bhola Yadav, former secretary to Lalu Prasad Yadav, as an accused.
The chargesheet alleges that Bhola Yadav oversaw all operations related to the alleged recruitment scam. He is accused of issuing directions to officials on behalf of Lalu Prasad Yadav.
The investigation has also named five members of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s family as accused:
- Lalu himself,
- Former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi,
- Deputy CM Tejashwi Yadav,
- Misa Bharti, and
- Hema Yadav
In a related matter, the court granted bail to Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, and Tejashwi Yadav on 4 October 2023.
Earlier, on 22 September 2023, the court had taken cognisance of the second supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI.
The land-for-jobs case has emerged as a politically charged issue with significant legal ramifications.
It is viewed as a litmus test for the handling of corruption allegations involving high-profile political figures.
Observers note that the outcome will shape public perception of institutional independence and adherence to the rule of law.
Also Read: Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Justice Yashwant Varma’s Petition Over Burnt Cash Case
To read more such news, download Bharat Express news apps
