Tweet
The Delhi Police on Friday gave a clean chit to Samajwadi party leader Reoti Raman Singh saying that there was no evidence to show his involvement in the 2008 cash-for-vote scam till now.
Public Prosecutor Rajiv Mohan told Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal that on the basis of evidence available on record, it could not be said that Singh was part of the alleged conspiracy to bribe parliamentarians to secure their support during voting on the 2008 trust vote sought by the UPA-I Government.
Former BJP MP and accused in the case, Faggan Singh Kulaste told the court that ‘beneficiaries’ of the scam were still running the Government. The judge also ordered sitting BJP MP Ashok Argal to appear before it on November 3 to face charges levelled against him in the scam. The judge issued summons to Argal, while taking cognisance of the second supplementary charge sheet by the police in the case.
“There is no evidence available against him to name him as accused in the charge sheet. There is no conversation or talk or any record to show that Singh was part of the conspiracy,” said the prosecutor. Regarding defence counsel’s allegation that Singh had met BJP MPs and was in constant touch with them during the trust vote on July 22, 2008, the prosecutor said meeting BJP MPs was not prohibited.
He said Singh was interrogated by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police and the statement of other accused including two former BJP MPs had also been recorded but no role could be attributed to Singh. The court’s query on Singh had come after the counsels for BJP MPs, during a hearing on their bail pleas, alleged that police had not recorded Singh’s statement despite the fact that he was seen in a CD of a sting operation conducted by a private channel.
Kulaste’s counsel Anil Soni told the judge, “They (police) have left Reoti Raman Singh; they have left out the man in yellow shirt (who along with accused Sanjeev Saxena delivered Rs 1 crore cash at BJP MP’s house on July 22, 2008) and have certainly left out the beneficiaries of the case. I maintain that this (Rs 1 crore) was not a bribe and I should be standing with them (the prosecution) as a witness against those who benefited from the episode and these beneficiaries are still running the Government.”
The court also heard the argument on the bail pleas of former BJP ideologue Suddhendra Kulkarni and former BJP MP Mahabir Singh Bhagora and deferred a decision till October 21. The prosecutor, however, questioned the sting operation and the accused claims that they were mere whistle blowers. He pointed out that the BJP MPs talked to former Samajwadi Party leader and accused Amar Singh on phone after the `1 crore was delivered to them on July 22, 2008.
Meanwhile, the court took cognisance of the second supplementary charge sheet after public prosecutor submitted that the sanction letter issued by the Lok Sabha secretariat to prosecute Argal was proper, a contention accepted by the judge. Earlier on October 7, the court had expressed reservation over the Lok Sabha secretariat’s sanction order to try Argal, saying that the prosecution lacks a ‘proper’ sanction order.
Argal was one of the three BJP MPs in the previous Lok Sabha who had waved wads of currency notes on the floor of the House ahead of the voting on confidence motion by UPA-1 in July 2008 alleging that the money had been paid to him to buy votes.
The court also allowed Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh to have his wife Pankaja Singh as attend to him at the hospital. Singh is undergoing treatment at AIIMS after his arrest in connection with the scam. The court allowed Pankaja Singh to act as a ‘home attendant’ for her husband at AIIMS till his discharge from the hospital after AIIMS Medical Superintendent, Dr DK Sharma, told the court that Singh, in view of his medical condition, an attendant was needed.
The AIIMS hospital Superintendent, who appeared in the court in pursuance to its notice issued on Thursday, said “I recommend that an attendant be provided to the accused/applicant Amar Singh in view of his health condition.” He, however, clarified that the nursing staff and attendants were also provided by the hospital as per requirement.
During the proceedings, a key witness of the case, Hashmat Ali, moved an application seeking police protection for himself and his family saying he ‘was under terror of accused Amar Singh.’ The investigating officer told the court that he had also given a similar application earlier and his plea was under consideration.
Public Prosecutor Rajiv Mohan told Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal that on the basis of evidence available on record, it could not be said that Singh was part of the alleged conspiracy to bribe parliamentarians to secure their support during voting on the 2008 trust vote sought by the UPA-I Government.
Former BJP MP and accused in the case, Faggan Singh Kulaste told the court that ‘beneficiaries’ of the scam were still running the Government. The judge also ordered sitting BJP MP Ashok Argal to appear before it on November 3 to face charges levelled against him in the scam. The judge issued summons to Argal, while taking cognisance of the second supplementary charge sheet by the police in the case.
“There is no evidence available against him to name him as accused in the charge sheet. There is no conversation or talk or any record to show that Singh was part of the conspiracy,” said the prosecutor. Regarding defence counsel’s allegation that Singh had met BJP MPs and was in constant touch with them during the trust vote on July 22, 2008, the prosecutor said meeting BJP MPs was not prohibited.
He said Singh was interrogated by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police and the statement of other accused including two former BJP MPs had also been recorded but no role could be attributed to Singh. The court’s query on Singh had come after the counsels for BJP MPs, during a hearing on their bail pleas, alleged that police had not recorded Singh’s statement despite the fact that he was seen in a CD of a sting operation conducted by a private channel.
Kulaste’s counsel Anil Soni told the judge, “They (police) have left Reoti Raman Singh; they have left out the man in yellow shirt (who along with accused Sanjeev Saxena delivered Rs 1 crore cash at BJP MP’s house on July 22, 2008) and have certainly left out the beneficiaries of the case. I maintain that this (Rs 1 crore) was not a bribe and I should be standing with them (the prosecution) as a witness against those who benefited from the episode and these beneficiaries are still running the Government.”
The court also heard the argument on the bail pleas of former BJP ideologue Suddhendra Kulkarni and former BJP MP Mahabir Singh Bhagora and deferred a decision till October 21. The prosecutor, however, questioned the sting operation and the accused claims that they were mere whistle blowers. He pointed out that the BJP MPs talked to former Samajwadi Party leader and accused Amar Singh on phone after the `1 crore was delivered to them on July 22, 2008.
Meanwhile, the court took cognisance of the second supplementary charge sheet after public prosecutor submitted that the sanction letter issued by the Lok Sabha secretariat to prosecute Argal was proper, a contention accepted by the judge. Earlier on October 7, the court had expressed reservation over the Lok Sabha secretariat’s sanction order to try Argal, saying that the prosecution lacks a ‘proper’ sanction order.
Argal was one of the three BJP MPs in the previous Lok Sabha who had waved wads of currency notes on the floor of the House ahead of the voting on confidence motion by UPA-1 in July 2008 alleging that the money had been paid to him to buy votes.
The court also allowed Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh to have his wife Pankaja Singh as attend to him at the hospital. Singh is undergoing treatment at AIIMS after his arrest in connection with the scam. The court allowed Pankaja Singh to act as a ‘home attendant’ for her husband at AIIMS till his discharge from the hospital after AIIMS Medical Superintendent, Dr DK Sharma, told the court that Singh, in view of his medical condition, an attendant was needed.
The AIIMS hospital Superintendent, who appeared in the court in pursuance to its notice issued on Thursday, said “I recommend that an attendant be provided to the accused/applicant Amar Singh in view of his health condition.” He, however, clarified that the nursing staff and attendants were also provided by the hospital as per requirement.
During the proceedings, a key witness of the case, Hashmat Ali, moved an application seeking police protection for himself and his family saying he ‘was under terror of accused Amar Singh.’ The investigating officer told the court that he had also given a similar application earlier and his plea was under consideration.
