The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the Bihar Government has much to explain how former MP Mohammad Shahabuddin, a notorious criminal, was allowed to get bail from the Patna High Court without even a whisper of protest by the State prosecutor.
The Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy also blamed the State for “contributory negligence” in allowing a history-sheeter, accused of heinous crimes, to walk out of jail. The court pointed out that the State prosecutors did not challenge the bail orders in the past 45 criminal cases.
The silence of the State Government to answer these queries posed by the court led the judges to doubt the seriousness of the prosecution to oppose Shahabuddin’s bail. The former MP belongs to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), which rules Bihar in alliance with the Janata Dal (United).
Bihar’s turn to argue against the September 7 order of the Patna High Court granting bail to Shahabuddin came after the Bench concluded hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan. He appeared for one Chandrakeshwar Prasad, whose three sons were allegedly killed by the gangster-turned-politician.
The State, represented by senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, submitted that the High Court order failed to consider that Shahabuddin was given life sentence in two separate cases of murder and kidnapping for murder. Dwivedi said the same High Court had refused bail to the accused nine months ago, adding the trial in the case was held up after Shahabuddin challenged the cognizance of charge before the High Court. This resulted in the entire case records to be transferred from trial court to the High Court.
Not amused by Dwivedi’s submission, the Bench asked, “If you (state) were feeling it is such an important case, all these things should be within the knowledge of the public prosecutor. From the records, can you show that your prosecutor asked for time or he was refused time. We are making this comment to indicate that at that point it (bail) was not taken seriously. It was prosecutor’s duty to bring it to the High Court’s notice.”
Dwivedi admitted there was some “anomaly” in the handling of the case by prosecutor but reiterated that a man who is a history-sheeter and a threat to witnesses cannot be allowed to come out of jail. The bench got back to him saying, “looking at the person that he is -- a four time MP, a two time MlA who is accused in 45 heinous cases, a common man’s thought would be how in so many cases he (Shahabuddin) is out on bail and not even in a single case, bail is challenged. It is only after bail is granted in the last of the lot when he is to come out that everybody rises from their slumber…the peculiarity of the case is being created due to contributory negligence (by the State).”
The court will hear Shahabuddin’s counsel senior advocate Shekhar Naphade on Thursday.