Home » India » Verdict reserved on Kanimozhi’s bail plea

Verdict reserved on Kanimozhi’s bail plea

Posted by on May 31, 2011 0 Comment

The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved verdict on the bail petitions of DMK Member of Parliament Kanimozhi and promoter and director of Kalaignar TV, Sharad Kumar, accused and remanded in judicial custody in the 2G spectrum case.

Justice Ajit Bharihoke reserved verdict after hearing arguments from senior counsel Altaf Ahmed and R. Shanmugasundaram and counsel V.G. Pragasam for Ms. Kanimozhi and Mr. Kumar and senior counsel and special Public Prosecutor for the 2G scam case, U.U. Lalit, for the CBI.

Earlier, in response to the court directions issued on May 24, Mr. Lalit produced in a sealed cover a copy of the supplementary charge sheet explaining the role of the two accused in the scam. Opposing the bail, Mr. Lalit submitted that the accused had attempted to create a “smoke screen” by projecting the bribe trail of Rs.200 crore as a loan transaction.

Describing the transaction as “dubious,” he pointed out that no contemporaneous documents were executed by any of the companies which were part of the money transaction and maintained that the amount of Rs.200 crore received by Kalaignar TV was nothing but a bribe.

However, Mr. Ahmed asserted that the amount of Rs.200 crore Kalaignar TV received from M/s. Cineyug Pvt. Ltd. was purely a loan and not a bribe as claimed by the CBI in its charge sheet. Counsel argued that it was a transparent transaction and the amount, received through bank, was duly accounted for, repaid and there was nothing dubious in the transaction.

Mr. Ahmed read out the charge sheet and said it was not the role of the CBI to question the defence of the accused that the amount received was a loan and say that such a defence was inadequate. There was no material with the CBI to show that the amount received was not a loan.

On the CBI’s submission that the bail pleas of five corporate honchos were dismissed by the High Court, Mr. Ahmed argued they stood on a different footing as they figured in the first charge sheet as licencees. But in the present case the petitioners were alleged to have received the proceeds of the crime and they had no role in the alleged crime. Since all the documents were with the CBI, there was no point in keeping the accused in jail.

In her appeal against the trial court’s May 20 order refusing bail, Ms. Kanimozhi said, “She is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to the biased media reporting concocted on the basis of conjectures and surmises. As a Member of Parliament and whip of the DMK party in the Rajya Sabha, she has to attend Parliament sessions and all-party meetings convened from time to time in connection with parliamentary business.” Hindu

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply