Recently, the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Tej Pratap Yadav and Hema Yadav in a case concerning the alleged 'land-for-jobs' scam registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court held that the accused were entitled to bail upon furnishing a bond and surety, considering the nature of allegations and the stage of proceedings. Notably, the Court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception unless compelling circumstances exist to justify continued detention.
The case pertains to alleged irregular appointments in the Indian Railways in exchange for land parcels transferred to the family of Lalu Prasad Yadav during his tenure as the Union Railway Minister. The CBI has alleged that these appointments were made in violation of established recruitment norms and without adherence to prescribed selection procedures.
The petitioners, Tej Pratap Yadav and Hema Yadav, sought bail on the ground that they had been cooperating with the investigation, and there was no material to suggest that they would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Their counsels contended that the case primarily pertains to documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency. Further, it was argued that the alleged transactions occurred years ago and that prolonged incarceration at this stage would be unjustified.
The CBI, opposing the bail plea, submitted that the appointments were secured in a fraudulent manner, circumventing established procedures. The prosecution argued that the accused were beneficiaries of the alleged scam and that their involvement warranted further scrutiny. The agency also highlighted the broader ramifications of such corrupt practices on public institutions.
The Court, while granting bail, observed, "The principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' must be applied unless there exist substantial grounds to deny relief. The accused have been cooperating with the investigation, and no compelling material has been presented to warrant their continued detention." The Court also took note of the precedent set in similar cases and emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without strong justification.
In light of the above considerations, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the accused to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 along with a surety of the same amount. The accused have been instructed to cooperate with the ongoing proceedings and not to attempt any interference in the investigation. The matter will proceed further as per the legal course.
Picture Source :
