A DISAPPOINTING NEWS: SUPREME COURT GRANTS BAIL TO JAYALALITHA IN WEALTH CASE The Hindu 17.10.2014) J.Venkatesan & Krishnadas Rajagopal) In a big relief to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered her release on bail in the Rs. 66.65 crores disproportionate assets case in which she was sentenced to undergo four years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 crores. A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justices Madan B. Lokur and A.K. Sikri also granted bail to the three other accused Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi on their furnishing two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the special judge, Bangalore. The Bench stayed the operation of the sentence imposed by the trial court on the four accused. The Bench, after hearing senior counsel Fali Nariman for Ms. Jayalalithaa, and senior counsel K.T.S. Tulsi for the other accused, said that the four convicts should not delay the trial and must ensure that the papers for the appeals were kept ready in two months. The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on December 18 to give further directions to the Karnataka High Court to dispose of the appeals within three months if the papers were made ready in two months. Past conduct The CJI told Mr. Nariman that going by the past conduct of Ms. Jayalalithaa and others in dragging on the trial for 18 years, there was no possibility of the appeal being concluded even in two decades if she was granted bail. At this juncture Mr. Nariman assured the court that the appeal papers would be ready in two months and the court could ask the Karnataka High Court to dispose of the appeals within three months. Mr. Nariman strenuously argued that “when a person is convicted and sentenced for a fix period of sentence and when he/she files a statutory appeal then the suspension of sentence ought to be considered by the Appellate Court liberally. The apex Court has held in several judgments that it would be travesty of justice to keep a person for a substantial period in jail during the pendency of an appeal for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by the accused.” He argued that “when the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the superior court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, and keeping the above legal principles in mind, the Special Public Prosecutor, Bhavani Singh, fairly conceded for the grant of bail with conditions by suspending the sentence. There was nothing wrong in the SPP taking a legal position and this was misconstrued by the High Court as if he was siding us.” Mr. Nariman also argued that the court should take into consideration Ms. Jayalalithaa’s medical condition and grant her bail. She might even be confined to her house, he said. But the CJI made it clear to Mr. Nariman “this court believes in Article 21 of the Constitution (life and liberty). Either we give bail or not give bail. We cannot pass such an order confining her to the four walls.” I am facing threat: Swamy Appearing in person, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy argued that as the original complainant, the court should consider the conduct of the AIADMK party men indulging in violence after her detention in prison. There was caricature and cartoons criticizing the trial judge that because he was a Kannadiga he denied bail to her. I am facing threat if I go to Chennai. If only Ms. Jayalalithaa had given a statement asking her party men not to indulge in such violent activities this could have been put to an end.” The CJI, taking note of Dr. Swamy’s submissions, made it clear to Mr. Nariman that such violent incidents should not happen and there must be a clear direction to this effect to the party men. Mr. Nariman assured that Ms. Jayalalithaa herself would issue a statement asking her party men to remain quiet.”
Posted on: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:14:41 +0000