The Madras High Court Bench here has granted anticipatory bail to garnet exporters S. Vaikundarajan (59) and his brother S. Jegadeesan (57) of Tirunelveli in a case booked against them by the CBI in 2012 on charges of paying Rs.8.25 crore in illegal gratification to A. Subbiah, former chairman of V.O.C. Port Trust in Tuticorin district.
Justice P.N. Prakash granted the relief after considering various factors including the fact that the CBI had so far not arrested the “principal offender” Mr. Subbiah who was now the Information Technology Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. He directed the advance bail applicants to execute a bond for Rs. 5 lakh with two sureties for availing the relief.
They were also directed to report before the investigating officer twice a day for a period of four weeks and as and when required thereafter.
Conditions
The judge also made it clear that the trial court would be entitled to initiate appropriate action against them if they either tamper with the evidence/witnesses or abscond from the proceedings during investigation or trial.
According to the prosecution, the garnet barons had paid the illegal gratification in the guise of purchasing 22 acres of land owned by the IAS officer’s mother A. Janaki at Kariapatti in Virudhunagar district. It claimed that a fancy price was paid for a worthless land and the money was deposited in a bank account held jointly by Ms. Janaki and her other son A. Jayaraman, a bank employee.
No supporting materials
However, holding that such an inference is “highly preposterous” in the absence of supporting materials to prove that the petitioners had obtained favours from the IAS officer, the judge said: “If in the future, the CBI is able to unearth credible materials to show that special favours were shown by A. Subbiah, IAS to V.V. Minerals (petitioners’ firm) as quid pro quo, then it is always open to the CBI to register a fresh case.”
Mr. Justice Prakash also expressed surprise over the CBI officials not having recorded the statement of Mr. Jayaraman despite arresting him on October 17. Since the statement was not recorded, it was obvious that even the sole arrestee in the case had not implicated the petitioners in the offence, he added.
