High Court seeks Delhi government's reply on Ajay Chautala parole plea

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today sought city government's reply on a plea by former MLA Ajay Chautala, serving a 10-year jail term in teachers' recruitment scam case, seeking twelve weeks' parole for medical treatment.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar asked the Delhi government to file the status report before January 29 on the plea of Ajay whose appeal against the high court verdict convicting him and his father, Haryana's former Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, and sentencing them to 10 years in jail was dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 3 last year.

The Supreme Court which upheld their conviction, however, had said the convicts may move the high court with their pleas seeking relief like parole on health grounds. Chautalas and three others are serving 10-year jail term in the case.

Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog and advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Ajay, sought twelve weeks' parole for enabling the convict "to get treatment and to maintain social ties".

"The order dated November 16, 2015 may kindly be quashed, whereby the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole was ordered to be rejected illegally," the counsel urged.

The high court had on March 5, 2015, upheld the 10 year jail term awarded to Chautalas and three others, saying, "the overwhelming evidence showed the shocking and spine-chilling state of affairs in the country."

The father-son duo and 53 others, including two IAS officers, were convicted on January 16, 2013 by the trial court for illegally recruiting 3,206 junior basic trained (JBT) teachers in Haryana in 2000.

Besides Chautalas and two IAS officers, the high court had also awarded 10-year prison term to Sher Singh Badshami, then an MLA and political adviser to Chautala senior.

The high court, however, had modified the trial court's order on the quantum of sentence and awarded two-year jail term to 50 other convicts.

All the 55 convicts have been sentenced under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 418 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of IPC and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Initially, there were 62 accused in the case. While two died before filing of the charge sheet, four passed away during the trial of the case and one was discharged by the trial court.