Lawyer representing Asaram quits
One of the lawyers representing self-styled godman Asaram today quit citing personal reasons leading to which a court here adjourned the ongoing cross examination of the teenage girl and also slapped a fine on the defence as no other lawyer was ready to further the proceedings.
Jodhpur: One of the lawyers representing self-styled godman Asaram today quit citing personal reasons leading to which a court here adjourned the ongoing cross examination of the teenage girl and also slapped a fine on the defence as no other lawyer was ready to further the proceedings.
Counsel Jagmal Choudhary, who had been representing Asaram in Jodhpur court since the beginning of the case, withdrew his `vakalatnama` and told the court that he was no more the lawyer of Asaram.
The case of sexual assault of the girl involving the self-styled godman and four others is going on in District and Sessions court here.
"After the withdrawal of Choudhary, the court asked others to continue with the arguments, but they refused and sought time, which disappointed the judge, who slapped a cost of Rs 5000," said public prosecutor R L Meena adding that judge Manoj Kumar Vyas advised Choudhary to think again.
Choudhary had also assisted lawyers coming to represent Asaram including Ram Jethmalani and Omkar Singh Lakhawat in different courts here.
He had cited personal reasons for quitting, however, according to the sources, Asaram was not willing to continue with him and was looking forward for a replacement.
Appointment of a new lawyer Neel Kamal Bohra in April validated this belief. However, instead of quitting, Choudhary expressed his wish to continue and hence continued representing Asaram in the court along with Bohra.
Choudhary was said to be disappointed due to Tuesday`s development, when the court had turned down his plea to adjourn the arguments.
"Though he had started the cross-examination of the victim on Tuesday and was supposed to continue today but instead of that, he withdrew his representation,"
But after he remained firm, the court took the development on record and adjourned hearing till May 16.