Delhi High Court defers hearing to Friday in Virbhadra Singh disproportionate assets Case

bitcoin trading

Delhi High Court has on Thursday deferred to Friday the hearing of a petition moved by former Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh and his wife Pratibha Singh challenging a local court order to frame charges against them in a disproportionate assets case. The hearing has also been transferred to a different bench after HC Judge Mukta Gupta recused himself from the hearing the case.

Earlier on Wednesday, Singh and his wife moved to Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order to frame charges against them for allegedly amassing disproportionate assets (DA) of over Rs. 10 crores. Virbhadra Singh along with his Pratibha Singh sought to quash the December 10 last year Patiala House Court directions framing of charges against him, his wife Pratibha Singh and seven others in the case lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) which has filed a case after CBI’s FIR, alleged that Former Chief Minister has used ‘bogus entries’ for transfer of illegal money. While CBI FIR accused Singh and his Kin of allegedly accumulating assets while he was serving as the minister of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise in 2009 UPA Government.

Central Bureau of Investigation in its charge sheet running into over 500 pages, filed in the court, claims that Virbhadra Singh had amassed assets worth around Rs. 10 crores which were disproportionate by 192 per cent of his total income during his tenure as a Union Minister.

The Top Court had transferred from Himachal High Court to Delhi High Court, which had on August 6, 2016, directed CBI not to arrest Singh and ordered him to join the investigation.

The CBI had approached the Supreme Court against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that barred barring the agency from arresting Former CM Virbhadra Singh.

The top court had transferred Virbhadra Singh’s plea from Himachal Pradesh High Court to Delhi High Court, saying it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but “simply” transferring the petition “in the interest of justice and to save the institution (judiciary) from any embarrassment” reportedly.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here