Patna, Sept. 23: A 2013 order of the Patna High Court staying the trial in all pending cases against former RJD MP Mohammad Shahabuddin virtually paved the way for the Siwan gangster-turned-politician to get bail earlier this month and ensure his release from prison after 11 years.
The high court, in its order of February 3 this year, while rejecting the bail application of Shahabuddin, had directed the state to complete the trial in the Rajiv Roshan murder case within nine months. Rajiv Roshan, the prime witness in the murder of his two brothers who were drenched in acid allegedly on orders of Shahabuddin in Siwan in 2004, was shot dead days before he was to depose in court in June 2014.
Special public prosecutor Jai Prakash Singh of Patna High Court said: "The trial in all the pending cases against Shahabuddin was stalled following the high court order of 2013." However, he added, the 2013 high court order "didn't apply to the Rajiv Roshan case".
But he refused to comment when asked why the trial in the Rajiv Roshan case didn't start in spite of the high court directive.
Siwan superintendent of police Saurav Kumar Shah put the ball in the court of the prosecution. "There was no laxity on part of the police as the chargesheet in the Rajiv Roshan murder case was filed in the court within the stipulated period. Once the chargesheet is filed in the court, it's the job of the prosecution (read public prosecutor) to ensure that the trial starts on time. However, in the Rajiv Roshan case, the public prosecutor didn't seek our cooperation. Had they approached us for any assistance, we would have extended our full cooperation," Shah told The Telegraph.
Shah said that the 2013 high court order came in the way of Shahabuddin's trial in all the pending cases against him. "In a few cases, the trial was in the final stage. Had Shahabuddin been convicted in those cases, he would not have come out of jail," the Siwan police chief added.
Siwan additional public prosecutor Raghubar Singh maintained that the trial in the Rajiv Roshan case could not begin as Shahabuddin had challenged the cognisance taken by the magistrate's court in Siwan on February 25, 2015. Shahabuddin's petition was rejected by the district and sessions court on July 22, 2016. But before the court delivered its verdict, Shahabuddin was shifted to Bhagalpur central jail from Siwan jail following the murder of Siwan journalist Rajdev Ranjan. As a result, charges were not framed against the accused, Singh explained.
According to rules, presence of the accused is a must in the court at the time of framing of charges in a criminal case.
That the high court stay could have impacted the bail verdict was borne out by advocate Prashant Bhushan in his petition filed before the Supreme Court on September 16 seeking cancellation of bail granted to Shahabuddin. "Why did the state government not make any attempt to vacate the stay in the trial of about 30 cases in the High Court that had passed the stay order on Shahabuddin's plea on his inability to hire a lawyer because of his 'poor financial condition'? Not starting the trial in the Rajiv Roshan case gave strong grounds for Shahabuddin's lawyer to plead that since there has been no pending trial, there was adequate reason to grant Shahabuddin bail," Bhushan, appearing for the parents of the slain Siwan brothers, said in his petition filed in the apex court.
In July 2013, Shahabuddin had petitioned a Siwan court claiming his financial incapability "to afford a lawyer". He had requested the court to appoint a lawyer of his choice.
Admitting his request on July 18, 2013, the Siwan court appointed Abhay Kumar Rajan as Shahabuddin's defence counsel and had fixed his wages equivalent to that of a special public prosecutor. However, the state government opposed this in the high court, arguing that Shahabuddin cannot be allowed to appoint a lawyer of his choice at public expense.
Hearing the case on October 9, 2013, the high court bench of Justice Shivaji Pandey said: "Till disposal of the case, in which the state government has challenged the Siwan court decision to appoint Rajan as Shahabuddin's lawyer, further proceedings pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, Siwan Jail Court shall remain stayed. Let this case be listed after appearance of opposite party No. 1 (Shahabuddin)." The case has still not been disposed of.
The information provided by the Siwan police through RTI threw more light on non-commencement of trial in cases against Shahabuddin. Delhi-based RTI activist Gopal Prasad had on April 25 this year filed an application with the Union home ministry and department of home, Bihar government, seeking the status of all the cases against Shahabuddin. A copy of the RTI is with The Telegraph.
In response to the RTI application, Siwan SP Shah, in his report submitted to the state government on June 15 this year, revealed that barring the nine cases in which Shahabuddin had been convicted by the special court in Siwan, trial in all others had been stayed by Patna High Court.
