cleanmediatoday@gmail.com

News

Friday, 5 October 2012

SC dismisses YS Jaganmohan Reddy's bail plea

cleanmediatoday.com


SC dismisses YS Jaganmohan Reddy's bail plea
Clean Media Correspondent


New Delhi, Oct 05 (CMC) YSR Congress leader and Member of Parliament YS Jaganmohan Reddy will have to be in jail for some more time with the Supreme Court today dismissing his bail plea in the alleged multi-crore disproportionate assets case against him.

A bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai ruled that Jagan can apply for bail only after the CBI completes its investigation in all the seven other cases lodged against him.

"The contours are much larger," the bench observed while refusing to entertain the persistent plea of senior counsel Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for Jagan.

Responding to queries from the bench, the CBI said it would complete the investigation by March 31, 2013. However, it later told the bench that it would try to complete it much more expeditiously.

The apex court passed the order after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Mohan Parasaran and senior counsel Ashok Bhan appearing for the CBI contended that Jagan cannot be granted bail as investigations were still underway in seven cases against him and letter rogatories have been issued to various countries as the cases have international ramifications.

Responding to queries from the bench, Parasaran said the total amount accumulated by Jagan and his associates, insofar as the four charge sheets have been filed, amounted to over Rs3,000 crore.

He submitted it would not be proper to release Jagan at this stage as the case "is a very serious economic offence that is unparallelled. The accused is also known for his political prowess. The saga of investigations is still continuing."

"They are so influential that they can influence the witnesses even while being inside," the ASG said.

Parasaran's argument, however, was countered by Subramaniam who said bail was a statutory right and Jagan was entitled to the same as otherwise it would violate his right under article 21 of the Constitution.

1 comment: