Delhi High Court has rejected the petition to stay the sentence of former Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti. His disqualification will continue following his conviction in the Rural Development Bank fraud case. The Election Commission has announced by-election on his seat.
New Delhi [भारत]July 10 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the plea to stay the conviction of former MLA Rajendra Bharti from Madhya Pradesh’s Datia. His disqualification will remain in place until his conviction is stayed or his appeal against the verdict is accepted. Bharti was convicted in the Gramin Vikas Bank fraud case in April 2026 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. His sentence has already been suspended.
Recently mid-term elections have been announced by the Election Commission. Justice Manoj Jain, after hearing the arguments on the application filed by Rajendra Bharti, rejected it. The detailed order of the High Court is to be uploaded. Delhi High Court on Thursday had reserved the order regarding staying the conviction of Rajendra Bharti.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur appeared on behalf of the respondent and advocate Abhik Chimni appeared on behalf of petitioner Bharti. The senior lawyer argued that the petitioner has been convicted and the process of mid-term elections has been started. This process cannot be reversed.
Meanwhile, advocate Abheek Chimni argued that once the conviction is stayed, the vacancy of the MLA’s seat will end. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court.
Bharti has challenged his conviction in the Rural Development Bank fraud case. He had also sought direction to the Election Commission not to issue notification for mid-term elections on the seat vacant after his 3-year sentence. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Rural Development Bank fraud case.
Senior advocate P. Chidambaram along with advocate Abhik Chimni had argued on behalf of Rajendra Bharti. It was argued that in this case Bharti was not the beneficiary and the Trust was the beneficiary. It was also argued that the case was transferred to Delhi on a petition filed by Bharti as he was not confident of getting justice in Madhya Pradesh.
Sentence suspended, out on bail
The High Court has suspended his three-year sentence pending his appeal. He was granted bail to challenge the decision before the High Court. On April 7, the High Court had issued notice on the appeal of Rajendra Bharti. He was disqualified from the Assembly after being sentenced to 3 years in jail by a special court in New Delhi.
He has also filed an application in the Delhi High Court, praying for a direction to the Election Commission not to issue the election schedule for the seat vacant after his disqualification. On April 2, the Rouse Avenue Court had sentenced Rajendra Bharti to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. Another convict, Raghubir Sharan Prajapati, has also been sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2.5 lakh. He was convicted by the court in the Rural Development Bank fraud case.
found guilty of criminal conspiracy
Special Judge (MP-MLA) Dig Vinay Singh sentenced Rajendra Bharti for the offense of criminal conspiracy under sections 120B read with 420, 467, 478 and 471 of the IPC. The other convict, Raghuveer Sharan Prajapati, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh under Section 120B IPC read with Section 467 for the offense of forgery. He has also been sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for the offense of forgery by cheating and a fine of Rs 50000 under section 120B IPC read with section 468 IPC. Additionally, he was also sentenced to 3 years’ jail and a fine of Rs 1 lakh for the offense of conspiracy under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
The court found Bharti guilty of the offense of criminal conspiracy punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC read with section 120B of the IPC. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manish Rawat appeared for the state and sought maximum punishment for both the convicts. He argued that other FIRs were also registered against Bharti. He was also in custody in a case. It was also argued that he is a 3-time MLA and also a lawyer. Despite this, as the chairman of the bank, he conspired and earned high rates of interest on FD. Due to his action, the bank went into liquidation.
What is the whole matter?
The third accused, Savitri Shyam (Bharti’s mother), died during the trial. A criminal complaint under section 200 of CrPC was filed against Savitri and her son Bharti on 29.07.2015 by Narendra Parmar, Manager of District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. Prajapati was summoned by the court on an application filed later.
It was alleged that on 24.08.1998, Savitri deposited Rs 10 lakh in a fixed deposit (FD) in the complainant bank at the interest rate of 13.5% per annum for a period of three years in the name of Shri Shyam Sundar Shyam Jan Sahayog and Samajik Vikas Sansthan, Mundian Ka Kuan, Datia, M.P. Deposited in the name of, which is a trust.
It was also alleged that instead of receiving interest on maturity, he started withdrawing annual interest payment of Rs 1.35 lakh from the first year, 1999, and continued to withdraw that interest for 13 years till 2011 in violation of the terms of the FD. The Bank also alleged that Bharti used his influential position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the complainant Bank to put pressure on the Bank employees to facilitate unauthorized payments to his mother/trust, thereby causing wrongful financial loss to the Bank.
The complainant bank had also alleged that in order to extend the interest payments beyond the initial three-year period, the accused, in conspiracy, tampered with the bank records, forged the tenure of the FD on the bank ledgers, FD receipts and FD certificate counterfoils so as to change the tenure on various bank documents from ‘three’ years to ‘ten’ or ‘fifteen’ years. The complainant claimed that both Savitri and Bharti conspired to embezzle bank funds for personal dishonest gain. The accused continued to withdraw interest at a high rate of 13.5% even long after the original FD tenure ended. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)