Sasikala, Bhaskaran granted bail in FERA violation case

CHENNAI, May 28: The vacation judge of the Madras High Court, Justice N Arumugam, on Tuesday granted bail to Sasikala Natarajan, close aide...

CHENNAI, May 28: The vacation judge of the Madras High Court, Justice N Arumugam, on Tuesday granted bail to Sasikala Natarajan, close aide of former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalitha and her nephew V Bhaskaran, who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in December last year for FERA violations.

The bail was granted on the condition that the two execute a bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties for the same amount. The order added that they stay in Chennai and can leave the city only after the ED is intimated about their destination and departure time. They should also surrender their passport, if any, to the ED and appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.

Arumugam, while passing his order, felt that the very filing of the complaint by the ED before the trial court, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the Economic Offences Court-I in this case, and the case being taken into cognisance, amounted to starting of proceedings against the accused.

Story continues below this ad

Though the trial court had issued the summons and made the accused appear before the court, which had fixed various dates for the trial, it had not commenced the trial. “Therefore, the present case falls clearly within Section 437(6),” the Judge said in his order.

The contention of the defence counsel had been that the bail in question invoked provisions of 437(6) of CrPC which says that if the trial was not completed within 60 days and the accused are in prison for the whole period, then they are entitled to bail.

Also, citing a few judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Judge felt that the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 437(6).On an objection by the ED that the trial magistrate, who alone is empowered to grant or reject bail under Section 437(6), had not been approached by the defendants, the Judge struck down the arguments on the grounds that the High Court had ample powers to grant bail.

To yet another objection by the ED that the investigation with regard to the case was still continuing abroad, the Judge pointed out that the ED could file a supplementary charge-sheet at any time after completing its investigations but that had nothing to do with the mandate under 437(6) of the CrPC.