Shahabuddin bail: SC flays Bihar govt.

September 29, 2016 02:34 am | Updated November 09, 2021 01:59 am IST - NEW DELHI

Were you in slumber, asks apex court; lawyer admits there were ‘anomalies’ in the State’s work

Bihar NDA leaders after their meeting with Governor Ram Nath Kovind on September 12. File photo

Bihar NDA leaders after their meeting with Governor Ram Nath Kovind on September 12. File photo

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Bihar government for not placing facts before the Patna High Court, which granted bail to controversial RJD leader Mohammad Shahabuddin in a murder case.

Counsel for the Nitish Kumar government, which has the RJD as its coalition partner in the State, faced searing questions in the apex court, which rebuked the State government for not being serious in pursuing the case against Shahabuddin.

“Why have you approached the court only after his release? Were you in slumber till he got bail? This is a peculiar case. But the question is on whose instance, and who is behind, this peculiarity? Why you did not challenge the bail granted to Shahabuddin in 45 cases? Why did you realise only when he came out of jail? If everything was fair, why would this case come to us,” a Bench comprising Justices P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy said, and clarified that by peculiarity, it meant negligence.

The observations came after senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, appearing for Bihar, sought cancellation of Mr. Shahabuddin’s bail and said the decision to release the RJD leader was improper as the High Court had ignored the relevant material in the case.

He said the High Court could not have granted him bail unless there was a special reason or a medical urgency.

The senior lawyer admitted there were “anomalies” in the work of the State government in the case.

To this, the Bench said: “We can understand your difficulty and the only thing we can say is that we understand everything.”

Mr. Dwivedi said, “I admit the anomalies. I am not in any way justifying the actions of the State government. We were handicapped at that time. But my submission is that the relevant material has been ignored in the case.”

The Bench then asked him: “Why should you be handicapped? You are the State. It was the duty of your lawyer to inform the High Court about the correct facts of the case. It was your duty to inform the High Court that a revision petition has been filed in the Sessions Court by Shahabuddin. Why didn’t you tell the High Court at that point of time?

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on Thursday.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.