New Delhi, July 9: The Supreme Court today stayed the fodder case trial proceedings and sought the CBI’s response to Lalu Prasad’s allegation that he did not expect a fair trial from the special judge in Ranchi as he was related to top JD(U) leaders in Bihar.

“We will get this fact (claim) verified. If what you say is true we will proceed with it. If what you say is wrong we will dismiss it (petition),” the bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J. Chelameshwar told senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, who appeared for Lalu.

The CBI court was to have pronounced its verdict in the case (RC-20 A/96) on July 15.

The apex court, while staying the proceedings, issued a notice to the CBI for its response after Jethmalani mentioned the matter around 1pm for urgent hearing.

The agency has been given time till July 23 to reply.

RJD chief Lalu had filed the special leave petition against the July 1 order of Jharkhand High Court refusing to transfer the fodder case trial from the court of CBI Special Judge IV in Ranchi to “any other court of competent jurisdiction”.

The case relates to the alleged siphoning off of over Rs 35.66 crore by several political bigwigs and bureaucrats from the Chaibasa treasury during 1994-95, when Lalu was the chief minister of undivided Bihar.

In his petition, Lalu alleged that the special CBI judge was showing undue bias owing to his proximity to the JD(U) leadership and hence he did not expect a fair trial.

The petition pointed out that Minu Devi, the younger sister of presiding CBI judge P.K. Singh, was married to the late Jainendra Shahi, the cousin of P.K. Shahi, the education minister in Nitish Kumar’s cabinet. She resides in the family’s ancestral house in Siwan district, where Shahi also lives during his visits to the village.

Besides, Shahi, a lawyer, has represented some of Lalu’s political rivals in the case in the past, the petition said.

“The petitioner, for valid reasons detailed above, has a serious apprehension of the real likelihood of bias on the part of the Ld presiding judge of the trial court. The Hon’ble High Court has gravely erred in not appreciating the same and rejecting the petitioner’s application for the transfer of the case from the court of the presiding officer in question to another court of competent jurisdiction,” the petition said.