The Supreme Court on Monday brought the Madhya Pradesh STF back into the Vyapam scam investigation, though partly, by entrusting it with the probe against 245 accused people till Thursday.
The interim order was passed on an application by CBI seeking additional time to take over the voluminous case records. While this exercise is expected to take several months, the court’s immediate concern was to ensure no accused gets bail for the fault of the investigating agency to complete probe within the mandated 90-period under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Hl Dattu, which had on July 9 ordered CBI to take over all Vyapam cases from STF, was convinced that looking into the enormity of the scam, the voluminous records, and the long list of over 2000 accused, the CBI was justified to request the STF to continue probe in those cases where the remand period was coming to an end or where the accused were seeking bail on account of the 90-day period to file charge sheet expiring.
Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar presented the court with a list of 245 accused whose period of remand was expiring this week.
However, the petitioners led by Congress leader Digvijay Singh, opposed the CBI’s plea. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that if CBI was allowed to complete investigation, it would amount to “dilution” of court’s order. He submitted that it was easier to set aside bail order than a closure report filed against any of the accused.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, directed Sibal to file a response to CBI’s application by Thursday and posted the matter for hearing on Friday. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi who appeared for STF claimed it had written to CBI on July 14 withdrawing from all cases. But if directed by Court, it was willing to continue with the probe.
Sibal told the Bench that CBI must specify how much time it required to physically take over Vyapam cases. He insisted that STF should only be allowed to file reports where investigation was complete. But the Bench felt such an order was not feasible as remand of accused in some cases would need extension.