The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Sri Vijayendra moves High Court for anticipatory bail

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jan 28, 2005

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Sri Vijayendra moves High Court for anticipatory bail

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI, JAN. 27. The junior Kanchi Acharya, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, today moved the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in the Radhakrishnan assault case.

In his petition, the junior Acharya, in judicial custody since January 10 in connection with the Sankararaman murder case, said he was sought to be arrested in the assault case based on the alleged confessional statements of Appu and Ravi Subramaniam. Stating that the case was sought to be foisted on him, the junior Acharya said his name did not figure in the first information report registered over two years ago.

"After sleeping for over two years, the prosecution had recorded the further statements of Radhakrishnan, implicating the senior Acharya as well as himself," the junior Acharya said, adding: "The truth and veracity of the statement, recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is wholly unbelievable and on the face of it, a false one."

He contended that the entire case had been built on the statement of an approver without any further materials for corroboration from independent sources.

Orders on bail

The principal sessions court is to pass orders on the bail applications of the arrested manager of the Kanchi Mutt, Sundaresa Iyer, and a co-accused, Kathiravan, on January 31. Both of them are detained under the Goondas Act.

When the matter came up before the judge, P. Murugesan, this morning, advocate K. Chandrasekaran submitted that there was no legal bar on the court to consider and dispose of the bail plea of Mr. Iyer as one was an offence under the Indian Penal Code and the other was a preventive detention. As for facts of the case, he wondered as to why Mr. Radhakrishnan should give further statements implicating the Acharyas in the assault case, two years after the occurrence. The only charge against Mr. Iyer was that he was present in the senior Acharya's room when the alleged conspiracy was hatched. As the Supreme Court had granted bail to the senior Acharya, Mr. Iyer, facing "lesser degree of complicity in the offence," would be entitled for bail, he argued.

The Public Prosecutor, K. Duraisamy, said it was a settled legal position that litigants should not approach courts for futile orders. Pointing out that even an order of bail would not benefit Mr. Iyer, the Public Prosecutor said the court should not be a party to such a futile order. He reiterated the prosecution stance that there was enough material evidence indicating the deep involvement of the Mutt authorities in the offence.

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

Tamil Nadu