No jail for Kanimozhi as judge defers case to May 20

CBI lawyer A K Singh told reporters outside the court that the only reason which the judge gave for not pronouncing the order was that it was not ready.

The court also adjourned its pronouncement of order till May 20 on the bail plea of Sharad Kumar,MD and CEO of Kalaignar TV.

Kanimozhi was accompanied by her husband G Aravindan and DMK parliamentary party leader T R Baalu.

Earlier,the court had on May 7 reserved its order on the bail pleas of Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar after hearing extensive arguments advanced by criminal lawyer Ram Jethmalani who,citing the charge sheet,blamed former Telecom Minister A Raja for the offence attributed to Kanimozhi.

The special court,designated by the Supreme Court to deal exclusively with the 2G case,has to decide the fate of Kanimozhi who has been accused of taking Rs 200 crore bribe for Kalaignar TV from Shahid Usman Balwa’s firm DB Realty.

The CBI has accused her of conspiring with Raja. She has also been charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking bribe through Kalaignar TV–a channel run by the DMK — in which the bribe of the 2G scam was routed.

Speaking to reporters after the court deferred its order on bail pleas of Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar,Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy said Kanimozhi is not going to escape from CBI’s clutches as more evidence against her is going to come up.

“I do not think she (Kanimozhi) is going to escape as more evidence is going to come. I do not think this matter is in any way showing that she is going to be let off or that the CBI is going easy on her,” Swamy said.

Kanimozhi and Kumar hold 20 per cent stake each in Kalaignar TV while Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal,who holds the remaining 60 per cent share in the broadcasting channel,has been made a witness.

Kanimozhi appeared before the court on May 6 in compliance with the summons issued after she was named in the second chargesheet.

Pressing for Kanimozhi’s bail,Jethmalani had sought to blame Raja and Sharad Kumar for the alleged offence saying she neither signed any documents nor handled affairs of the company.

“My misfortune is that I am Karunanidhi’s daughter and an MP. I have 20 per cent shares in Kalaignar TV. Show me one overt act of mine which relates to the offence,” he had said.

He had contended that apart from having 20 per cent shares in Kalaignar TV,she does not have any role in running its day-to-day affairs.

CBI opposed her bail plea saying her “complicity” in the alleged bribe given to Kalaignar TV in the 2G scam was clear.

“The transactions (of Rs 200 crore) are nothing but the transfer of bribe money to Kalaignar TV. Kumar alone cannot be held responsible when a family is having the controlling shares,” special public prosecutor U U Lalit had argued.

Plea for transfer of Kani’s bail application to HC or SC dismissed

The plea of a DMK supporter from Tamil Nadu that the bail application of party MP Kanimozhi be either referred to the Delhi High Court or to the Supreme Court was today dismissed.

The special court,designated by the Supreme Court to exclusively deal with the 2G spectrum case,rejected the plea of M Purushothaman,saying his submissions were “contrary to law” prescribed under the CrPC.

“When an accused appears or is brought before the court and a bail application is moved by him/her,the same has to be disposed of as per provisions of the CrPC,which deals with the provisions as to bail and bonds. The submissions,as such,are contrary to the law.

“The application is without merit and the same is dismissed,” Special CBI Judge O P Saini said.

Purushothaman,a DMK supporter who came all the way from Chennai to file the application on May 12,submitted that if an elected representative (Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi) is arrested,it would “affect the rights of the citizens” to participate in the affairs of their constituency through an elected representative.

Terming Kanimozhi as their “collective voice”,he had “the special court should consider whether the right of a voter held to be a fundamental by the apex court would be affected if elected representative is detained or prevented in any manner from discharging her constitutional duty”.

“A member of Rajya Sabha not only expresses his or her opinion but also expresses the collective opinion of the voters who have voted for him or her,” he said.