The Hindu : Front Page : Acharya's bail plea rejected

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Nov 21, 2004

Front Page

Front Page

Acharya's bail plea rejected

By K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI, NOV. 20. The Madras High Court today dismissed the bail application of the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, in the case relating to the murder of Sankararaman, Manager of the Varadarajaperumal Temple, Kancheepuram, on September 3.

In his 16-page order, Justice R. Balasubramanian said that the investigation was at a threshold. The offence the Acharya was charged with was serious and the prosecution case was that more investigation was needed.

Prima facie material

The Judge said the petitioner was implicated as a conspirator. A perusal of the case diary showed that there was prima facie material in the form of statements made by various persons implicating the petitioner as the conspirator and indicating that money received from him was used for completing the crime. He would not want to say anything more at this stage. The Supreme Court rulings said courts should not embark on a detailed inquiry into the merits or demerits of cases while considering bail applications. The Judge agreed with the State's senior counsel that the prosecution was not bound to give all details to the petitioner at this stage.

As to the question whether there was any violation of the Constitutional mandate under Article 22 (1), and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Justice Balasubramanian said that he found the answer against the petitioner. He referred to the playing in the court hall of the video footage on the arrest and said he could see and hear the petitioner being informed of the grounds of arrest. The conversation between the petitioner and the police officer who arrested him showed that when the Acharya wanted to have his lawyer, the officer told him that he could do so.

It was not as though the petitioner could not engage a lawyer of his choice, the Judge said. "Law does not require a police officer arresting a person to take a lawyer with himself and provide him to the arrested person." As regards the availability of a lawyer to the petitioner at the time of his remand, the sworn affidavit of Y. Thiagarajan, advocate, showed that he was inside the Judicial Magistrate's chamber and he also raised objections regarding the remand. He did not see any reason to accept the advocate's version that the Magistrate was not inclined to hear him before passing the remand order, but heard him after the Acharya was remanded.

A perusal of the remand records showed that even at the time of remand, the Magistrate explained to the petitioner why the Acharya was arrested and remanded. Hence, there was no violation of the Constitutional mandate or Section 50 Cr.P.C.

The presence of lawyers in the Magistrate's chamber did indicate that the remand proceedings took place in the open court. The court could not interfere with the powers of the investigating agency. What the agency should do or should not do was outside the purview of the court's powers. It was for the police to decide whether an identification parade was necessary or not.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section

Manmohan reaches out to Manipuris

Acharya's bail plea rejected

Let us meet halfway, says Musharraf

17 policemen killed by naxalites

Court notice to Centre, six States on emission norms

300 posts of judges to be filled soon

Rates hiked

Gritty Hall holds SA together