The Hindu : New Delhi News : Madras High Court order stayed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

Madras High Court order stayed

J. Venkatesan

AIADMK MP was told to deposit Rs.10,27,504 as condition while being granted bail
“Registration of complaint as FIR actuated by political motives, malafides”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Madras High Court order directing AIADMK MP N. Jothi to deposit Rs.10,27,504 as a condition while granting him anticipatory bail in a criminal case.

A three-Judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, stayed the direction till January 15 on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Mr. Jothi challenging the High Court order. Counsel Guru Krishnakumar pleaded for stay of the order and sought early listing of the SLP.

Senior counsel Altaf Ahmed, appearing for Tamil Nadu, opposed the stay and said the High Court had stayed the direction till January 31. Moreover, the petitioner himself had given an undertaking to deposit the amount. The Bench posted the matter for hearing on January 15 and stayed the impugned direction till then.

In his SLP, Mr. Jothi said a frivolous private complaint had been filed alleging that though he was not government counsel, he had travelled by air from Chennai to Delhi on tickets issued by the State Public Works Department as a counsel before the Cauvery Tribunal, and stayed in Tamil Nadu House in Delhi thereby causing wrongful loss to the government.

He said the complaint was vexatious. Its registration as an FIR by the government was actuated by political motives and malafides. The High Court had failed to consider that for the offences alleged in the FIR, the court could not recover/direct deposit of the amounts alleged in the FIR as a condition to grant anticipatory bail.

He said the High Court had failed to take into consideration the fact that Section 438 Cr.P.C. was a procedural provision concerned with the personal liberty of an individual, who was entitled to presumption of innocence. On the date of his anticipatory bail he had not been convicted of the offences in the FIR.

The High Court had failed to consider that though the complaint was made on February 18, 2007, the case was registered after 10 months.

The allegations were absurd and inherently improbable. The SLP sought quashing of the unreasonable direction issued by the High Court and an interim stay of its operation.

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

New Delhi