Supreme Court refuses to stay probe against former Congress minister

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Bhaya, pressed for an urgent interim relief praying that the investigation in these “politically motivated” cases be stayed. He argued that the FIRs were lodged after the 2023 Rajasthan Assembly elections, allegedly to harass Bhaya following his electoral defeat.

The FIRs, he argued, are vague, overlapping, and have been filed by politically affiliated complainants to settle scores.

Former cabinet minister for Mines, Petroleum and Gopalan in the third Ashok Gehlot ministry from 2018 to 2023, Bhaya was elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly three terms from Anta and Baran constituencies. Representing Rajasthan, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma said that each FIR pertains to separate transactions involving distinct facts, complainants and offences, ranging from illegal mining, issuance of forged pattas, to financial misappropriation and document fabrication in collusion with various public officials.

Sharma argued that clubbing these FIRs was neither legally sustainable nor practically feasible, especially as they have been lodged across multiple police stations, and that investigation in several matters is at an advanced stage and that the matters are investigated fairly and independently.

Taking note of the submissions of the state, the Supreme Court declined to grant Bhaya an interim relief and directed him to cooperate fully in the investigation in all the FIRs pending against him across Rajasthan. However, the top court also categorically stated that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing.

In his petition, Bhaya had challenged the May 1 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court where it had dismissed his petitions for clubbing and quashing of FIRs, terming the reliefs sought “contradictory and legally irreconcilable.”

The High Court had observed that the FIRs involved distinct allegations and did not arise out of a single transaction, and hence the “test of sameness” was not satisfied. It further ruled that no mala fides could be presumed without any specific pleading or proof against the investigating officers.

The FIRs against Bhaya include allegations under various provisions of the IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, and others, registered at multiple police stations. The SC sought a response from the state government within four weeks.