New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has exempted Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and Tej Pratap Yadav from personal appearance in court between February 1 and February 25 during the framing of regular charges in the CBI case related to the land-for-job scam.

Today, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, and Tejashwi Yadav appeared through video conferencing, while Misa Bharti, RJD MP and Lalu Prasad's elder daughter, and Hema Yadav were present in court, both of whom denied the charges. The court will hold daily hearings from March 9 for further trial and recording of evidence in the case.

In fact, RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and Tej Pratap Yadav had requested exemption from personal appearance in court, which has been accepted by the court. It is worth mentioning that on January 9, the court had framed charges against a total of 41 accused, including the Lalu family. Now, a regular case will be filed against all of them. Meanwhile, the court had acquitted 52 people in the case.

Earlier, former Chief Minister Rabri Devi had filed a petition before the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court. In it, she had demanded that the four cases be transferred, which had framed charges against Rabri Devi and her family members in the alleged IRCTC scam case. In her petition, she had demanded that the pending four cases be transferred before Judge Vishal Gogoi. This includes the IRCTC scam case, the alleged land-for-job case, and the related money laundering action.

In fact, last year on October 13, Special Judge Vishal Gogoi of Rouse Avenue Court had framed criminal charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and others in the IRCTC case.

Also Read: 'Land-for-job' case: Hearing on framing charges against Rabri Devi deferred till August 25
Rabri Devi had alleged biased behavior by the judge. The former Chief Minister had said that her and her family members' cases were being heard with a preconceived notion. The judge has a wrong inclination towards the prosecution. The petition stated that "during the proceedings in all the above cases, the Special Judge's attitude has appeared to be biased and inclined towards the prosecution on several occasions."