The Hindu : National : Hearing adjourned on Kanchi Acharya's anticipatory bail pleas

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 04, 2005

National

National

Hearing adjourned on Kanchi Acharya's anticipatory bail pleas

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, FEB. 3. Hearing on the anticipatory bail pleas of the senior Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Mutt, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, in connection with an assault case pending in a sessions court here and an accounts falsification case in the Madras High Court, were adjourned to February 11 today.

In a related development, a Division Bench of the High Court admitted a habeas corpus petition filed by the arrested manager of the Kanchi Mutt, Sundaresa Iyer, challenging the detention. On January 21 he was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (Goondas Act). Admitting the plea, the Bench comprising Justice M. Karpagavinayagam and Justice T.V. Masilamani ordered notice returnable in four weeks.

When the Acharya's anticipatory bail application came up for hearing in the Principal Sessions Court here, the City Public Prosecutor said the matter be adjourned by a week to enable the State Public Prosecutor, K. Duraisamy, to make a detailed submission. Since an undertaking by the prosecution that the Acharya would not be arrested was still in operation no prejudice would be caused, he said. The matter was accordingly adjourned to February 11.

When the Acharya's application came up before Justice M. Thanikachalam in the High Court, the Judge again wanted to know from the Public Prosecutor whether the "falsification of accounts" case was maintainable at all, and said the prosecution must first clear his doubts. Reiterating that the case was maintainable, Mr. Duraisamy said he required time to file a detailed counter-affidavit.

To a pointed query from the Bench, whether the senior Acharya was an accused in the case or not, the Public Prosecutor said that at the stage of filing of first information report he was not an accused. Investigation was at a "crucial stage" and material was being gathered, he added. The matter was then adjourned to February 11.

Detention challenged

Meanwhile, in a habeas corpus petition challenging Mr. Sundaresa Iyer's detention, his son-in-law, V. Ananthanarayanan, said the power of preventive detention had been used with mala fide motive, with a view to disabling the detenu from effectively defending the "false cases foisted on him."

Stating that Mr. Iyer was not one of the assailants who hacked Sankararaman inside a temple at Kancheepuram even according to the prosecution, the petitioner said the detention order was passed on a "wrong premise." Further, the occurrence had not affected the public order, and that "the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has been completely vitiated by non-application of mind."

He said: "The ground that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and is also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a goonda is without basis...The grounds of detention are absolutely vague and bereft of material particulars." Also, "the nexus between the date of occurrence and the date of passing the order of detention is not proved by the detaining authority." He then sought that the impugned order be quashed and that Mr. Iyer be set at liberty.

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

National

News Update

Stories in this Section

Hearing adjourned on Kanchi Acharya's anticipatory bail pleas

States to take higher share of taxes, duties

India ranks 101 on Environmental Sustainability Index

No need for third front now: Karat

Trust vote was a sham, says Jamir

Hung Assemblies in Jharkhand, Bihar: exit poll

Advantage Congress in Haryana: exit polls

Correction

Amritanandamayi Math schemes for tsunami-hit

Order reserved on plea to shift Pappu Yadav

Restore Parrikar Government: Swamy

Journalist unions call for restoring democracy in Nepal

Left seeks early elections in Goa

BJP delegation meets Kalam

Left plans protest against FDI