The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge by the Jharkhand government to revoke the bail granted to RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar fodder scam case. The court has directed the Jharkhand High Court to finish hearing his pending criminal appeal within six months. This decision maintains the status quo for the former Chief Minister regarding his 2019 sentence suspension.
The Supreme Court has decided not to cancel the bail of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad Yadav in connection with the Deoghar treasury fodder scam case. A bench of justices declined the plea filed by the state of Jharkhand, which had sought to revoke the sentence suspension granted by the Jharkhand High Court back in 2019. The court noted that since the suspension of the sentence has been in place for nearly seven years, there was no immediate justification to intervene.
Deadline Set for Appeal Disposal
While refusing to cancel the bail, the apex court emphasized that the ongoing delay in the legal process must be addressed. It has directed the Jharkhand High Court to expedite the final criminal appeal, which has been pending since 2018. The bench set a strict timeframe, requesting that the High Court complete the hearing and deliver a verdict within six months to resolve the long-standing matter.
Legal Arguments on Sentence Calculation
The dispute centered on how the jail term served by Lalu Prasad Yadav was calculated. The state of Jharkhand argued that the High Court’s 2019 decision was based on a flawed interpretation of his prison term. The state’s representative contended that sentences from various fodder scam convictions should be served consecutively rather than concurrently. This would have meant he had not yet completed half of his required sentence, a standard benchmark for bail.
In response, the defense argued that the debate over whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently is a complex legal issue that should be settled during the final appeal hearing rather than at the bail stage. The defense also pointed to established practices in the High Court, where similar relief has been granted to other individuals convicted in related cases upon completion of half their sentence. The Supreme Court's refusal to disturb the bail order keeps the focus on the upcoming final appeal in the High Court, which remains the primary monitorable for the resolution of this case.