New Delhi: A Delhi court has rejected Lalu Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi’s plea seeking over 1,600 incriminating documents to prepare their defense in the land-for-jobs case hearing, saying these were prepared to “condemn Bhulbhulaiya at the very beginning of the trial”.“ Special Judge Vishal Gogne underlined that providing these documents en masse would not only “put the cart before the horse” but would also “completely disrupt” the judicial process. He also rejected the applications of two other accused – Private Secretary (PS) Lalu PrasadRK Mahajan, seeking an unreliable document, and a former appointing authority, former General Manager of Railways, Maheep KapoorAccording to news agency PTI, 23 unreliable documents are being demanded. Unreliable documents are materials seized by the investigating agencies but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint. The case of land in exchange for jobs pertains to Group D appointments in the West Central region. Indian Railways According to the Central Bureau of Investigation, in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, land parcels were gifted or transferred by recruits in the name of the RJD supremo’s family or associates in exchange for land parcels. On May 18, 2022, a case was registered against Lalu Prasad and others including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals. In a scathing 35-page order passed on Wednesday, Justice Gogne said the court’s statutory control over the trial “cannot be usurped by the accused under the guise of cross-examination” and there appeared to be a “latent intention” by the applicants to drag out the proceedings. The court said that it needs to record the evidence in accordance with the statutory provisions to ensure the right to a fair hearing and speedy conclusion of the proceedings. The court said that the accused were asking that all or some of the incredulous documents be made available before the defense preparations could be considered, implying that the supply of incredulous documents was being offered as a condition for the commencement of cross-examination. It said, “While preparation for cross-examination certainly involves projection of the defense (by way of questions or suggestions), such an exercise cannot be postponed on the self-serving prayer of the accused that they would be hampered in their preparation for cross-examination unless they have incriminating documents.” Underlining that the pleas were “untenable”, the court said the accused “cannot be allowed to impose any condition on the continuation of the judicial proceedings.” It states that it is not mandatory to provide documents regarding the title or rights of the accused in various judicial instances. The court said that in the absence of these at the beginning of the trial, they cannot claim prejudice in their defence. The court said that the accused was first given adequate opportunity to inspect the documents, which were part of the unreliable basket of evidence. The court said it did not think the accused were “wandering in the dark” as they had been asked to prepare for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. It said that as per law, the trial was to be conducted on the evidence first cited by the prosecution, including the documents relied upon.The court said, “If the pleas of the accused are accepted, the outline of the trial, as recognized in the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS), will change from a reliable (documented) template to an unreliable (documented) scenario.”The court said, “The ulterior motive or at least the effect of mass provision of unreliable documents to the accused would not only put the cart before the horse but would also throw the trial proceedings into complete disarray.” According to news agency PTI, the court highlighted that providing unreliable documents is “an additional discretion” to be exercised by it at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and such discretion would be governed by necessity and desirability.Judge Gogné said, “The reliable documents are only 421, while the unreliable documents are 1,675. The Court feels that the prayer for making available all the unreliable documents is designed to condemn the trial at the very beginning of the trial, and that too when the accused have not even begun to raise any specific defense by way of questions, suggestions or speculative defence.” He said that if the court had to decide on the relevance, necessity or desirability of producing hundreds, if not thousands, of unreliable documents before the witnesses had made a single statement and even before a single shot had been fired at them during cross-examination, it would be “merely consisting in expressing views on the relevance of the unreliable documents to the defence.” The judge also said he could discern an “latent” or “underlying intention” by the applicants to drag the proceedings into a process where the provision of 1,675 unreliable documents would be followed by a plethora of applications seeking missing or unclear documents.“The trial court must be mindful of the ulterior motives of the applicants apart from unfair consequences,” he said. With regard to Mahajan’s plea, the judge said it was “completely selfish” for him to argue that cross-examination would be hampered due to unavailability. CBI The file, which was not even a credible document. He said, “The Court would reiterate that the statutory scheme of the trial cannot be subverted so that the proceedings turn into a trial of unreliable documents to the detriment of reliable documents.” The court also highlighted the allegations against him in its order. Lalu Prasad Yadav That he allegedly misused his official position as the then Union Railway Minister to ensure appointments of certain persons to Group D posts in the Indian Railways. The court said that in alleged quid pro quo, the appointed candidates or their family members sold or gifted their respective lands to Lalu Prasad’s family members, and co-applicant Rabri Devi was one such member. It said Mahajan, his then private secretary, allegedly misused his official position, in conspiracy with him and others, to ensure several such appointments by transmitting the list of nominees promoted by Lalu Prasad to various general managers, including Kapoor, who were appointing authorities. On January 9, the court had ordered framing of charges against RJD supremo Lalu Prasad, his family members and others. It has framed charges against 41 accused and discharged 52 others in the case. Of the 103 accused named in the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, five have died.