New Delhi: Lalu Prasad Yadav, the former chief minister of Bihar and leader of the RJD, has approached the Supreme Court to contest an order that dismissed his request for a stay on the trial court proceedings concerning the CBI’s land-for-jobs case.

A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh is expected to hear the case on July 18.

On May 29, the Delhi High Court determined that there were no compelling reasons to halt the proceedings.

BJP releases video highlighting ‘Jungle Raj’ during Lalu’s administration.

The high court has issued a notice to the CBI regarding Yadav’s request to quash the CBI FIR and has scheduled the hearing for August 12.

This case pertains to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways, located in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Prasad’s term as railway minister from 2004 to 2009. It is alleged that these appointments were made in exchange for land parcels that were gifted or transferred by the recruits to the family or associates of the RJD leader, according to officials.

In his petition to the high court, Prasad has requested the quashing of the FIR and three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024, along with the subsequent cognizance orders.

The case was initiated on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and several others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials, and private individuals.

The former chief minister contended that the FIR was filed in 2022, which represents a delay of nearly 14 years, despite the CBI having previously closed its initial inquiries and investigations after submitting a closure report to the appropriate court.

“The initiation of a new investigation, while concealing the previous investigations and their closure reports, constitutes an abuse of the legal process,” the petition stated.

The petitioner claimed that he is enduring an “illegal, motivated investigation” that violates his fundamental right to a fair investigation.

“The commencement of the current inquiries and investigations is invalid, as both were initiated without the necessary approval mandated by Section 17A of the PC Act. In the absence of this approval, any inquiry or investigation conducted would be null from the outset,” the plea stated.

Yadav described it as a case of “regime revenge and political vendetta,” asserting that the initiation of the investigation without the required approval tainted the entire process from the beginning, constituting a “jurisdictional error.”