New Delhi: Delhi Police on Wednesday chargesheeted Amar Singh, Ashok Argal, Mahaveer Bhagoda, Phagan Singh Kulaste, Sudheendra Kulkarni, Sanjeev Saxena and Sohail Hindustani in the cash-for-votes case. The police has asked for the sanction of the Lok Sabha Speaker to chargesheet Ashok Argal as he is a sitting BJP MP.
Delhi Police will file the status report in the Supreme Court on September 2.
The police on August 18 told a Delhi court that the probe in the 2008 cash-for-vote scam was nearing completion and it would file the chargesheet before it on August 25.
The crime branch of Delhi Police told Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal that the probe report, in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court, would be filed soon.
Earlier, the apex court had slammed Delhi Police for giving a clean chit to politicians and for its 'half-hearted and hopeless' probe into the scam.
The Supreme Court had asked the police to take their probe to the logical conclusion and submit a final report in three weeks.
"The three weeks time given by the Supreme Court on August 5 to complete the investigation is going to end soon. We will file our chargesheet on August 25," public prosecutor Rajeev Mohan said.
The police, however, did not file their replies to bail applications of Sanjeev Saxena and Suhail Hindustani arrested for their alleged role in the scam.
The court has fixed the hearing on both bail pleas for August 25 and also extended the judicial custody of the duo till then.
Santosh Pandey, counsel for Saxena, opposed the plea of the prosecutor that some more time be granted for filing replies to the bail pleas of the accused.
The court, however, told Pandey that it could start hearing arguments on the bail without the written replies of police.
Advocate Anand, appearing for Hindustani, said police were "deliberately suppressing" facts from the court and real accused were outside while his client, who could have been made a witness, is in jail.
"Bail cannot be held as punishment. The actual accused of this case have been roaming outside while my client has been languishing in jail for such a long time. There is nothing against me in the FIR," he said.
The court then asked the prosecutor about the replies to the bail pleas saying it was the question of liberty of accused.
"It is a question of personal liberty of an accused. We have Article 21 of the Constitution. The bail application is pending and if he (the defence counsel) is not arguing, then I have no problem but the hearing on the bail plea cannot be deferred on the ground that the chargesheet is going to be filed," the judge said.
The prosecutor then pleaded for adjournment till August 25 when they would also file the chargesheet.
Hindustani's counsel accused the police of not providing them or even the court the complete facts of the case.
"What is the basis of the FIR against me? In the FIR, there is no role, no allegation against me. The recommendation of the Parliamentary inquiry committee, on the basis of which this the FIR was registered, is not on record," the defence counsel said.
The judge then asked the police to show recommendations of the Parliamentary inquiry committee which had initially probed the scam and also provide a copy to the accused.
(With additional information from PTI)
Comments
0 comment