The order was passed by a special court dealing with cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which has alleged that jobs in the railways were offered during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as railway minister between 2004 and 2009 in exchange for parcels of land transferred to members of his family. The court’s decision to reserve January 9 for the next stage signals that arguments on whether sufficient grounds exist to formally frame charges have reached an advanced phase.
The prosecution has contended that several candidates or their relatives transferred land at throwaway prices or through questionable deeds, following which appointments were allegedly made in Group D posts across railway zones. Investigators have pointed to a pattern of property transactions that, they argue, cannot be explained by legitimate income sources. The accused have consistently rejected the allegations, describing the case as politically motivated and lacking evidentiary substance.
Lalu Prasad, a former union minister and one of the most recognisable figures in Bihar politics, has been facing multiple corruption cases over the past decade, including convictions in fodder scam matters. His wife Rabri Devi, who served as chief minister in the late 1990s, and their children have appeared before the court on several occasions in connection with the land-for-jobs investigation, complying with summons and bail conditions imposed earlier.
Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, who currently holds a senior position in the Bihar government, has maintained that the accusations are designed to derail his political career. He has argued in court filings that there is no direct evidence linking him to any appointment decisions during the period under scrutiny. Tej Pratap Yadav and Misa Bharti have taken a similar line, asserting that property transactions cited by investigators were either lawful or unrelated to any recruitment process.
Legal observers note that the framing of charges is a crucial juncture in criminal proceedings. If the court decides that the material placed on record discloses a prima facie case, the trial would formally commence, requiring the accused to face evidence and cross-examination. A decision not to frame charges, on the other hand, could significantly weaken the prosecution’s case or lead to discharge for some or all of the accused.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed detailed charge sheets citing documentary records from railway recruitment boards, land registry offices and banking channels. Officials familiar with the investigation say the agency has relied heavily on paper trails rather than witness testimony alone, arguing that the sequence and timing of land transfers correspond closely with recruitment decisions taken during the same period.
Defence lawyers have challenged this narrative, pointing out what they describe as gaps in causation. They have argued that many of the alleged beneficiaries were appointed on temporary or contractual bases and that land transactions involving family members do not automatically establish quid pro quo arrangements. They have also questioned the delay in initiating the probe, suggesting that the case gained momentum during periods of heightened political contestation.