SC adjourns hearing on Jagan's bail cancellation, Bench changed

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred the hearing of a petition filed by Andhra Pradesh Deputy Speaker Raghurama Krishnam Raju seeking the cancellation of bail granted to YSRCP chief and former Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy in the disproportionate assets case.

The apex court postponed the matter to next Monday (January 27), following a request from the CBI counsel citing the unavailability of their senior lawyer. Adding to the development, the Supreme Court registry reconstituted the bench assigned to the case.

The earlier bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mittal has now been replaced by a new bench of Justice BV Nagaratna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. During the proceedings, Raghurama Krishnam Raju's counsel, advocate Srinivasan, argued that the trial has stagnated for over a decade, with not a single discharge application resolved in the past ten years.

He accused the accused and the CBI of collusion, alleging deliberate attempts to delay the trial. Srinivasan highlighted that five judges had been transferred without delivering verdicts on discharge petitions, raising suspicions of a "conspiracy angle" in the case. The counsel also requested the transfer of the trial to another State, citing prolonged delays and lack of progress.

However, he acknowledged the Supreme Court's earlier ruling against transferring the case and emphasized the need for the trial to proceed without further hindrance. Mukul Rohatgi, representing Jagan, countered the claims by stating that the Andhra Pradesh High Court is actively monitoring the case, and proceedings are still ongoing.

Meanwhile, the CBI advocate admitted that despite clear directives from the Supreme Court and the High Court, the trial remains stalled. The advocate assured the bench that an affidavit detailing the status of the cases had been submitted. Requesting an adjournment, the CBI advocate cited the unavailability of the senior counsel and sought additional time to present their arguments. The bench, after considering the request, deferred the hearing to January 27.