Was CBI dual stand a clever strategy?
Has the CBI taken a dual stand on the issue of bail in 2G case under a well-crafted “legal strategy” by not opposing it to DMK MP Kanimozhi and four others and challenging the same to rest of the accused to ensure that none of them could come out of jail just before the recording of evidence?
After rejection of the bail to Kanimozhi and four others, despite CBI not opposing it, by special judge O.P. Saini with an observation that such a distinction was of “no legal consequence” was being seen in the legal circles as a “well crafted legal tactic” adopted by the agency to get a favourable order of rejection against all the accused. In fact, CBI’s “dual stand” opposing and favouring bail on the basis of 7 years and 5 years sentence for specific charges framed against particular accused, had come in for sharp attack in the Supreme Court on Monday from four top lawyers arguing the bail petitions of five corporate honchos.
Senior advocates Ram Jethmalani, Mukul Rohtagi, Ashok Desai and Soli J. Sorabjee had expressed surprise over CBI making such a distinction on the basis of sentence while terming it “contrary” to the principles laid down by the apex court on bail issue.
Mr Jethmalani had pointed out that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, any distinction could be made only on the basis of “death or life sentence” and sentence below 10 years. But additional solicitor general Haren Raval had categorically stated that CBI had given the “concession” only to Kanimozhi and four others. The lawyers for the corporate honchos later had told mediapersons that they were “baffled” over CBI’s such a distinction unheard of in the realm of criminal cases’ history. They explained that the accepted principle of bail was that if it is granted to one accused the others would also become entitled to it barring in some rare circumstances. The release of Kanimozhi and the four would have paved the way for bail to all the accused, which the CBI never wanted. Some lawyers went a step further describing the CBI’s action as a “tactical” move to save the Congress-led government from any political embarrassment on the face of stiff pressure by alliance partner DMK on bail to Kanimozhi while the agency did not want the other accused to get the benefit. In support of their argument they cite CBI’s affidavit to the Supreme Court opposing bail to corporate honchos. The other important factor for CBI drawing such a “strategy” was being attributed to its “incomplete” investigation about the money trail abroad, which could be hampered if the accused persons, particularly the corporate honchos gain freedom at this critical juncture when the agency has to submit a status report.
Post new comment