Supreme Court verdict on Mohammad Shahabuddin's bail today
The Supreme Court will pronounce on Friday its order on appeals challenging the grant of bail to controversial RJD leader Mohammad Shahabuddin in the Rajiv Roshan murder case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce on Friday its order on appeals challenging the grant of bail to controversial RJD leader Mohammad Shahabuddin in the Rajiv Roshan murder case.
The apex court bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy will pass its order after lawyers representing Shahabuddin and others wrapped up their arguments in the case.
The September 7 order of the Patna High Court granting bail to Shahabuddin was initially challenged by one Chandrakeshwar Prasad, whose three sons -- third one being Rajiv Roshan -- were killed allegedly by Shahabuddin's henchmen.
The apex court on Wednesday had come down heavily on Bihar government for not placing facts before the Patna HC which granted bail to Shahabuddin in a murder case and asking the state "were you in slumber till he got bail?"
Shahabuddin's counsel Shekhar Naphade told the court that although cognizance of the case was taken on February 25, 2015, he had not been served the charge-sheet to date, despite its being a mandatory requirement under criminal law.
Naphade on Thursday told the court that it was the Bihar government that was delaying the trial, and the shifting of Shahabuddin from Siwan to Bhagalpur Central Jail on May 18, 2016, was also a ploy to that end.
Counsel Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for Chandrakeshwar Prasad, said that cognizance of charge-sheet was taken on February 25, 2015, thereafter Shahabuddin challenged the order of cognizance. He moved the court thrice for grant of bail, but he never aired the grievance that he had not been given the copy of the charge-sheet, he pointed out.
Bhushan asked that even if there was delay of nine months, could it be the basis for grant of bail to a criminal who had been convicted in 10 cases, awarded life imprisonment in two cases, 10-year sentence in one and also facing charges under the Arms Act.