CBI, probing the corruption charges against jailed YSR Congress leader Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, today accused him of misguiding a special court here while seeking bail "by giving a different interpretation of the apex court's order".
Earlier on October 5, the special CBI court had dismissed his bail plea.
Opposing the fresh bail applications of Jagan, CBI Deputy Legal Advisor Balla Ravindranath argued before the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases here that the petitioner (Jagan) was not entitled to get any relief at this stage in view of the Supreme Court order, which upheld the submissions of the central agency that the investigations were still on in connection with seven matters related to the case.
The apex court, while dismissing Jagan's bail petition had directed that the petitioner was open to renew his bail before the trial court "on completion of the investigation by the CBI on the seven matters," Ravindranath pointed out.
"The petitioner is misguiding this court regarding the grant of bail despite clear orders of the Supreme Court," the CBI DLA contended and further submitted that in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on October 5, "the accused cannot give a different interpretation of the order" and the bail petitions filed by Jagan are not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed.
The Kadapa MP, presently under judicial remand and lodged in the Chanchalguda Central Prison here since his arrest on May 27 by the CBI on corruption charges, had on November 16, filed two separate petitions in the court seeking bail.
The Supreme Court on October 5 dismissed Jagan's bail plea in the alleged multi-crore disproportionate assets case against him. A bench of justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai ruled that Jagan can apply for bail only after the CBI completes its investigation in all the seven other cases lodged against him.
Jagan, who sought bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC, said he was exercising statutory rights for grant of bail in relation to all offences in the case registered against him where probe has not been completed within the specified period