It was a huge setback to Jayalalithaa, as Justice A V Chandrashekara rejected the IAs, holding there were no grounds for the appeals.
Lodged at Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara, since September 27, Jayalalithaa had pinned much hope on Tuesday's hearing. Anxiously surfing television channels for the latest news in the jail superintendent's chamber, she sank into a chair as the bolt hit. Earlier, rumours had begun to float that bail had been granted, and she had prepared to pack up.
The special court that convicted the four accused in the multi-crore disproportionate assets case had sentenced them to four years' simple imprisonment each, and imposed a cumulative fine of Rs 130 crore, of which Rs 100 crore was to be paid by Jayalalithaa.
Judge Chandrashekara observed that a person seeking bail during the pendency of trial stands on a different footing, compared with a person who seeks bail after being convicted, as the parameters are different. "It is not a fit case. An accused who has been convicted is presumed to be corrupt, more than [one] on a trial, till he is exonerated by an appellate or revisional court," the judge said, while noting the trial court had held that Jayalalithaa and the other three had amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income.
The judge negated the argument put forward by the counsels for Jayalalithaa that she was on bail during the entire 18-year trial period and had never once violated the bail conditions imposed by the court. He also cited a judgment of the Karnataka high court, stating it's not mandatory to grant bail.
The judge refused to accept the argument put forward by senior counsels Ram Jethamalani and Amit Desai — who appeared for Jayalalithaa, Sasikala Natarajan and V N Sudhakaran — that the trial court had passed the order without applying its mind. Judge Chandrashekara noted the trial judge, in his 896-page judgment, had gone through the entire evidence on record and considered six important points. Questions were posed to the accused on these issues. It was also noted that though the prosecution had put the value of disproportionate assets at Rs 66.65 crore, the trial judge had reduced it to Rs 53.60 crore after verification.
The court recorded the oral submission of special public prosecutor (SPP) G Bhavani Singh that he had no objection if the court were to grant conditional bail to the four appellants. The court noted that on October 1, the SPP had filed a written statement of objections opposing grant of bail, stating it would be difficult to secure Jayalalithaa as she is an influential person.
Earlier Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of the AIADMK supremo, argued the trial court had erred in calculating Rs 28 crore towards construction and renovation of a building by her as disproportionate assets, though the actual figure was only Rs 4 crore. He argued that wherever prosecution failed to prove a charge, the trial judge had donned the role of 'prosecution witness'. On Sudhakaran's lavish wedding and related expenses, Jethmalani said most of the expenses were borne by the bride's family. He questioned how the trial judge fixed Rs 3 crore as the cost incurred on the wedding.
Desai, who appeared on behalf of Sasikala and Sudhakaran, argued there was no finding with regard to benami property, but only a declaration by the judge.
Hashmath Pasha, counsel for J Elavarasi, argued there was inconsistency in fixing the sentence. He argued his client did not come under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
What next?
* Jaya will have to approach the Supreme Court for bail.
http://ift.tt/1xgrhi8 bail plea,Jayalalithaa arrest,Jayalalithaa
Stay updated on the go with The Times of India’s mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.
0 comments:
Post a Comment