Lalu gets 3 yrs, 6 mths in jail, fined Rs 10 L in fodder scam case
Ranchi: A special CBI court today sentenced RJD chief Lalu Prasad to three-and-a-half years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on him in a fodder scam case relating to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs 89.27 lakh from the Deoghar Treasury 21 years ago.
The punishment was handed down to 69-year-old Prasad by CBI court judge Shiv Pal Singh. This is the second time that he has been jailed in the fodder scam.
The judge also imposed a fine totalling Rs 10 lakhs on him.
He was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in jail in a fodder scam case for offences of cheating, along with criminal conspiracy, and other sections under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Prasad was also given a jail term of three years and six months in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
He was fined Rs 5 lakh each under the IPC and the PCA, CBI counsel Rakesh Prasad said, adding that failure to pay the fine would entail another six months in jail.
The sentences will run concurrently, he said.
Prasad, who was convicted in the second case on December 23, is at present lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail.
The judge conveyed the punishment to Prasad through videoconferencing.
The court had yesterday concluded arguments on the quantum of sentence against Prasad in connection with the withdrawal of Rs 89.27 lakh from the Deoghar Treasury between 1990 and 1994 when he was the chief minister of Bihar.
It had also heard arguments on the issue of punishment for 10 others convicted in the case.
Earlier today, the court concluded arguments on the quantum of sentence against five other convicts.
Prasad was given a prison term of five years on September 30, 2013, in another fodder scam case. He was released on bail by the Supreme Court after having remained in jail for over two-and-a-half months.
The CBI special judge had on December 23 acquitted former Bihar chief minister Jagannath Mishra and five others in the case.
In 1996, the Patna High Court had ordered an inquiry into the fodder scam cases and a charge sheet in the Deogarh Treasury case was filed against 38 people on October 27, 1997.
Eleven of them died and three turned approvers, while two other accused confessed and were convicted in 2006-07, a CBI official said.
On September 30, 2013, Yadav, Jagannath Mishra and several others were convicted in another case pertaining to illegal withdrawal of Rs 37.7 crore from the Chaibasa Treasury in the early 1990s.
Prasad faces another three fodder scam cases for illegal withdrawal of Rs 3.97 crore from the Dumka Treasury, Rs 36 crore from the Chaibasa Treasury and Rs 184 crore from the Doranda Treasury.
Meanwhile, Prasad's son Tejashwi Yadav said in Patna that they will move high court against his father's conviction.
"We will move high court against Lalu Prasad's conviction and appeal for bail after studying the court verdict," he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
