While granting bail to six accused persons in the cash-for-vote case on Wednesday, the Delhi High Court virtually gave them a clean chit, observing that there was no criminal conspiracy on the part of the then three BJP MPs to demand and accept a bribe to vote in favour of the confidence motion moved by the UPA government in 2008.
Justice M.L. Mehta accepted the defence submission that it was just a sting operation to expose horse-trading. Agreeing with the motive of the three MPs — Ashok Argal, Mahabir Singh Bhagora and Faggan Singh Kulaste — as argued by their counsel, to organise a sting operation along with a news channel CNN-IBN to expose buying of MPs for the trust vote, Justice Mehta said: “Apparently, there does not appear to be any reason to disagree with counsel. If there was any conspiracy between the petitioners, inter se or with the bribe givers, they would have not associated with the channel and exposed themselves to the act of taking money before the camera.”
The judge said: “I have gone through the entire voluminous charge sheet, but could not find any prima facie evidence on record of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the three MPs.”
Justice Mehta also endorsed another defence submission that as it was meant to be a sting operation, it could not have been reported to the police or any authority. “It is worth considering and has its own merit.”
Quoting the forensic examination report of the video/audio CDs of the sting operation that there was no tampering with or editing in them, Justice Mehta said “none of the petitioners [accused] was a beneficiary of the amount received by the MPs from Sanjeev Saxena, [former aide of Rajya Sabha member Amar Singh and one of the accused].”
“It is the prosecution's own case that the MPs did this to entrap the Congress and the Samajwadi Party to expose them. If the intention of the petitioner MPs was to receive bribe, they would have done so and kept the amount so received silently instead producing it in Parliament immediately thereafter,” Justice Mehta said.
“If that was so, even according to the prosecution, the basic requirement of mens rea to accept and receive bribe so as to bring it within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act was lacking on the part of all the petitioners.” The court also said all star prosecution witnesses, in their statements to the investigating officer, described the incident as a sting operation and none cited acceptance of illegal gratification by the BJP MPs.
On the role of Sudheendra Kulkarni, former of aide of BJP leader L.K. Advani, the court said he had just introduced the three MPs to the CNN-IBN team.
The court described Suhail Hindustani as a “whistle-blower and organiser of the sting operation.”
However, Justice Mehta made it clear at last that nothing contained in this order would amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
