The refusal of bail to DMK leader Kanimozhi and others accused in the 2G scam by a CBI court has evoked reactions from legal eagles on whether the order violates the judicial norm of according bail to accused, once investigations are complete and trial is set to begin.
It was a welcome that was never meant to be. November 5, 2011, was expected to be a day of celebrations for the DMK in Chennai, as it was widely believed that the bail petition of M.K. Kanimozhi, daughter of DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi, would be approved, especially since the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the prosecuting agency, had not objected to pleas for bail by her and four others. Since May this year, Kanimozhi has been in judicial custody in Delhi’s Tihar Jail in connection with the infamous 2G scam. As it happened, the much anticipated relief from the court never came about. On November 4, Special Judge O.P. Saini, heading the CBI Special Court, struck down the bail applications of Kanimozhi and seven others at a packed trial courtroom at the Patiala House complex in Delhi. Kanimozhi – who was otherwise relaxed and calm before the court session began – broke down as her husband G. Aravindan, mother Rajathi Ammal and 11-year-old son tried to console her. This was the fourth time that Kanimozhi’s bail plea was rejected. It was first rejected by a special CBI court, then by the Delhi High Court and then the Supreme Court.
In dismissing Kanimozhi’s bail application along with that of seven others, Judge Saini cited “the very serious nature of the charges” against them, even though the prosecutor had not opposed the bail pleas of most of the accused. Rejecting the contention that the accused should be given bail as the offence was not one punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court’s response was uncharacteristically harsh. “Merely because the offence is not one punishable with death or life imprisonment, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. If the allegations so warrant, bail may properly be refused even in case of the non-bailable offence not punishable with death or life imprisonment,” stated the Special CBI court. Terming the case, as one of unprecedented nature, Justice Saini observed that, “The facts and circumstances of the case itself suggest that the witnesses would be under a lot of pressure, given the serious consequences of the case for the parties. This is further compounded by the fact that the witnesses are employees, relatives, family members, colleagues and subordinates of the accused persons.”
The court also refused to draw a distinction made by the CBI in not opposing bail to those who were included as accused (Kanimozhi and four others, Asif Balwa, Rajeev Aggarwal, Karim Morani and Sharad Kumar) in the supplementary charge sheet, as they had been charged with a lesser offence punishable with imprisonment for five years, and those cited as accused in the main charge sheet. The court noted that once the supplementary charge sheet was merged with the main charge sheet, there was only one charge sheet and no distinction could be made on the basis of separate charge sheets.
In dismissing Kanimozhi’s bail application along with that of seven others, Judge Saini cited “the very serious nature of the charges” against them, even though the prosecutor had not opposed the bail pleas of most of the accused. Rejecting the contention that the accused should be given bail as the offence was not one punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court’s response was uncharacteristically harsh. “Merely because the offence is not one punishable with death or life imprisonment, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. If the allegations so warrant, bail may properly be refused even in case of the non-bailable offence not punishable with death or life imprisonment,” stated the Special CBI court. Terming the case, as one of unprecedented nature, Justice Saini observed that, “The facts and circumstances of the case itself suggest that the witnesses would be under a lot of pressure, given the serious consequences of the case for the parties. This is further compounded by the fact that the witnesses are employees, relatives, family members, colleagues and subordinates of the accused persons.”
The court also refused to draw a distinction made by the CBI in not opposing bail to those who were included as accused (Kanimozhi and four others, Asif Balwa, Rajeev Aggarwal, Karim Morani and Sharad Kumar) in the supplementary charge sheet, as they had been charged with a lesser offence punishable with imprisonment for five years, and those cited as accused in the main charge sheet. The court noted that once the supplementary charge sheet was merged with the main charge sheet, there was only one charge sheet and no distinction could be made on the basis of separate charge sheets.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
