Wrangling over Jagan Mohan Reddy’s bail petition

Even as the Supreme Court has fixed Friday to hear the bail application of the YSR Congress president YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Union law ministry, the attorney general’s office and the CBI are fighting it out over who will represent the government to oppose the bail plea.

Though the Congress leaders have scotched rumours that the government was going slow on the Jaganmohan case to reciprocate his support for Pranab Mukherjee in the presidential election, attorney general Goolam Essaji Vahanvati’s decision to field additional solicitor general Mohan Jain to oppose the bail plea, has fueled speculations of political interference.

In a letter to the law ministry dated August 24, the CBI director AP Singh had asked to retain the team which had contested the case ‘successfully’ before the special judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Now, as the case is coming up in the SC before the bench of justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai on Friday, the attorney general has asked Jain to appear in the court. The CBI chief’s missive to the law minister Salman Khurshid is yet to elicit a response. The agency wanted the case to be handled by another additional solicitor general Haren P Rawal and senior advocate Ashok Bhan who, Singh believed, had successfully foiled Jagan’s attempt to get any reprieve  from the Andhra Pradesh HC.

The CBI fears that the government wants to go soft on Jagan for political compulsions and therefore Rawal is being replaced with Jain. Congress leaders approached by DNA, however, strongly contested the impression.

In its 63-page rejoinder to Jagan Reddy’s petition challenging the high court’s dismissal of his bail plea on July 4 by CBI’s deputy inspector general H Venkatesh, the investigating agency has said that Jagan has made attempts to influence witnesses and tried to stifle investigation and prosecution by filing several petitions and initiating frivolous proceedings, including an attempt to subvert the course of justice by misusing the procedures of the Supreme Court.

The CBI has also sought permission to place, in a sealed envelop, information before the Supreme Court to satisfy it about “the sensitivity, gravity and apprehension regarding tampering of witnesses by the petitioner.”