New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Saturday moved Delhi Court against Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav in IRCTC scam case. The investigating agency also requested that the bail granted to him be revoked, reported news agency ANI. 


Special Judge Geetanjali Goel issued a notice to Tajaswi Yadav on the CBI's plea and requested his response in the matter, according to the news agency.






The scam is related to the IRCTC hotel maintenance contract case, in which the CBI charged 12 people and two businesses. There were alleged irregularities in the awarding of contracts to two IRCTC hotels in Ranchi and Puri in Odisha to a private firm in 2006, which included a bribe in the form of a three-acre commercial plot in a prime location in the Patna district.


IRCTC Scam Case


The CBI sought a trial to be expedited in the IRCTC hotels scam case, in which former railway minister Lalu Prasad, his wife Rabri Devi, Bihar's current deputy chief minister Tejashwi Yadav, and 11 others were named as defendants in the agency's chargesheet, Economic Times reported. 


Even four years after a special CBI court took cognizance of the chargesheet against Prasad and others allegedly involved, arguments on framing charges are yet to begin. In February 2019, a co-accused petitioned the Delhi High Court, alleging that the CBI failed to seek Prasad's prosecution sanction because he was a government employee at the time of the alleged offence.


In July 2017, the CBI filed a case against the Yadavs and others allegedly involved. In April 2018, the agency filed a chargesheet against the accused after a nearly year-long investigation. In accordance with the Delhi High Court's February 2019 order, the CBI filed a status report in response to Asthana's petition in March 2020 in which it stated that it had sought prosecution sanction against one accused in July 2018.


According to the status report, Lalu Prasad, then-railways minister, and four other public servants were "also found abusing their official position, but at the time of filing of chargesheet they were not in service, thus sanction for their prosecution was not necessary under the provisions of the then Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988," according to an Economic Times article.