HC directs trial court to admit Justice Nirmal Yadav’s anticipatory bail
Taking up Justice Nirmal Yadav’s(retd) petition seeking anticipatory bail in infamous Cash-at-Judge's door case, the Punjab and Haryana high court has directed that she shall be admitted to the bail by the trial court on her appearance on the next date of hearing.Updated: Aug 19, 2011 21:47 IST
Taking up Justice Nirmal Yadav’s(retd) petition seeking anticipatory bail in infamous Cash-at-Judge's door case, the Punjab and Haryana high court has directed that she shall be admitted to the bail by the trial court on her appearance on the next date of hearing. The trial court would do so subject to her furnishing bail bond and surety to its satisfaction.
The bench headed by justice Permod Kohli, on Friday, issued the directions when the retired judge moved the high court apprehending her arrest in view of the summons issued by the special judge(CBI) court, Chandigarh to her for her personal appearance in the case.
Justice Yadav has not made her personal appearance in the trial court till date despite repeated summons issued to her for appearing on May 19, July 9 and August 1. Adjourning the case for August 27, the trial court had directed fresh summons be pasted outside justice Yadav’s Gurgaon residence.
However, justice Permod Kohli issued notice of motion to the CBI for filing its reply in the case on the next date of hearing i.e. September 7.
Justice Yadav has submitted in her petition that she has been falsely implicated in the case by certain “disgruntled elements i.e. politicians, bureaucrats and CBI” to malign her and the judicial system. She added that totally false allegations have been leveled against her by the CBI in its chargesheet filed before the trial court.
The petition also read that she has been made a target of political vendetta as her brother is a cabinet minister in Haryana. It was further stated that there was no basis of connecting the purchase of land in Solan(Himachal Pradesh) as the same was purchased as per the prevalent market price and there was no evasion of stamp duty.
Justice Yadav also mentioned that the CBI should have confined itself to the matter entrusted to it regarding receipt of Rs 15 lakh whereas it desired to conduct investigation into the conduct of a sitting judge for which permission of the Chief Justice of the high court was required. She also submitted that there was nothing to establish that there was some connection between the co-accused Ravinder Singh and her because of which the amount was demanded or delivered.
She also submitted that as investigation into the case is over and the chargesheet has been filed by CBI so her custodial interrogation would not be required.
Background of the case:
The case had made headlines, when a parcel containing Rs 15 lakh had been handed over to justice Nirmaljit Kaur of Punjab and Haryana high court, by Prakash Ram, clerk of Sanjiv Bansal, former additional advocate general. The Chandigarh Police had registered an FIR on August 18, 2008 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of IPC. Later, the probe was handed over to the CBI.
First Published: Aug 19, 2011 21:19 IST