Supreme Court Denies Bail Cancellation for Lalu Yadav in Deoghar Scam Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld Lalu Yadav's bail in the Deoghar fodder scam case, rejecting the CBI's plea for cancellation. The court emphasized the need for expedited hearings in the ongoing legal proceedings. This decision comes after a lengthy legal battle, with the CBI arguing against the bail based on previous rejections. The court's focus now shifts to ensuring a swift resolution of the appeals, indicating a preference for efficiency over revisiting the bail order. Stay informed about the latest developments in this high-profile case and its implications for Indian politics.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 14, 2026, 12:32 IST

Supreme Court's Decision on Lalu Yadav's Bail

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court provided significant relief to former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Yadav regarding the Deoghar fodder scam, as it declined to cancel his bail. The court also refused to issue any orders concerning the CBI's petition to stay the Jharkhand High Court's ruling. Furthermore, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the hearing of the case. Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale presided over the matter and chose not to interfere with the High Court's decision, while instructing that the appeal against the trial court's ruling should be processed more swiftly.

CBI's Appeal and Court's Response

The Supreme Court dismissed the CBI's request to revoke Yadav's bail and opted not to intervene in the High Court's ruling that granted him bail. The court emphasized its reluctance to interfere, especially since seven years have passed since the CBI's appeal, which dates back to 2018. The Supreme Court has directed the High Court to accelerate the proceedings in Yadav's case.

Arguments Presented in Court

Representing the CBI, ASG S.V. Raju argued that Yadav's bail plea had been rejected twice previously. However, the High Court later granted bail on the grounds that he had served 50% of his sentence, a basis deemed factually incorrect, as it overlooked that the sentences were not to run concurrently. Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing Yadav, contended that Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to concurrent or consecutive sentences, applies only at the final judgment stage, not when considering interim stays on sentences.

Court's Stance on Expedited Hearings

The Supreme Court bench indicated a preference for expediting the hearings on the appeals rather than reconsidering the bail order. The bench remarked on the necessity to hasten the trial process, suggesting that if they expedite the hearing of the appeals, they might not need to intervene in the challenged order.

Stay Updated with National News

For the latest updates on national politics, current events, and major news stories, stay tuned to National News in Hindi.