Tweet
Kani bail plea adjourned till November 28
The Delhi High Court bench hearing the bail petitions of DMK MP Kanimozhi and five other accused in 2G scam on Friday failed to satisfy itself that similar ground existed for granting them bail as was done in the case of five corporate honchos by the Supreme Court. An unprepared CBI failed to convince the court when Justice VK Shali remarked as to what was the need of the present petition and argument if each case was to be decided on the basis of the Supreme Court judgements.
Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran appearing for the CBI sought time to continue with the argument following which the hearing was adjourned till Monday. This came as a disappointment for the accused and their supporters as they expected the High Court to follow the suit and grant them bail. It is noteworthy that the CBI had decided not to oppose the bail pleas in the High Court.
The prosecuting agency also could not satisfy the court when the judge asked the CBI to explain its stand on Section 409 of IPC dealing with criminal breach of trust that attracts maximum punishment of life term in the case. The remarks relating to Section 409 of IPC slapped against all the 17 accused in the case was made by Justice Shali towards the end of the day-long hearing, which started on Friday instead of December 1.
“The Supcharges were crystallised in the trial court and it cannot be said that this fact was not known to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. How do we assume that trial judge would award maximum seven years sentence and not life term under section 409,” Justice Shali observed while adjourning the proceedings for Monday.
Justice Shali referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case and said it talked about maximum sentence of seven years which could be awarded to accused (corporate accused) if they are convicted. Responding to the query of the judge, senior advocate Altaf Ahmed, who appeared for Kanimozhi, said the apex court was aware of charges framed also under Section 409 of the IPC and its order is binding on all courts. The court was also hearing the bail pleas of former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, filmmaker Karim Morani, DMK-run Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar and private firm Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd director Rajeev Agarwal and Asif Balwa of DB Realty.
Seeking bail for the accused, the defence counsels primarily based their arguments on the ground of parity saying the petitioners were equally or better placed in the case than the five other accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Kanimozhi’s counsel referred to the Apex Court judgement and said refusal of bail to Kanimozhi would be ‘denial of justice’. “Article 141 of the Constitution binds all subordinate courts to follow the Supreme Court judgements,” Ahmed argued.
He also sought to convince the judge saying the CBI’s contentions in the trial court, the High Court as well as in the Supreme Court were rejected. “In the trial court, the special public prosecutor gave the concession saying some of the accused can be granted bail.
The special judge overruled CBI. In the Supreme Court, the CBI, however, opposed the bail but the Supreme Court again overruled CBI,” Ahmed said.
