The Bihar government has been in a tight spot over the criminal-turned-politician Shahabuddin’s case even as the Supreme Court is slated to pronounce its order on Friday within a few hours from now on the plea to cancel the bail granted to the former Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Mohammad Shahabuddin. He is facing criminal charges in around 50 cases.
Activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has filed one of the petitions on behalf of the parents of victims of Shahabuddin, argued that all rules were broken only to facilitate Shahabuddin walk out of jail at will.
Bhushan sought cancellation of bail of Shahabuddin on the ground that if he were out on bail, then the life of the last witness, who was yet to testify in a case, would be in danger.
The Bihar Government has also filed an appeal before the apex court challenging the Patna High Court’s order of granting bail to Shahabuddin, but belatedly after criticism all over about the state government’s inaction given the proximity of Shahabuddin to the powers that be in the state particularly the state’s remote control now and RJD strongman Laloo Prasad Yadav .
Shahabuddin, who had been in jail for more than 10 years in connection with multiple cases, was granted bail by the Patna High Court on September 7 in connection with the murder of a man who witnessed the brutal killing of two brothers in Siwan by pouring two buckets of acid at the MP’s instance.
Shahabuddin’s release from jail evoked widespread criticism of the grand alliance in the state with the opposition accusing the government of not opposing the bail strongly in the court.
The state government came under severe criticism of the apex court also which said, “it is a serious matter… even the charge sheet has not been served”.
A bench of Justice Amitava Roy and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, which heard two separate pleas by the Bihar government and another by one Chandrakeshwar Prasad, whose three sons were allegedly murdered by Shahabuddin (in that inhuman ‘acid killing’), seeking cancellation of the bail, said the state government did not proceed as per procedure established by law.