DMK Member of Parliament Kanimozhi on Saturday moved the Delhi High Court against the November 3 Special CBI Court order denying her bail in the 2G spectrum case.
Ms. Kanimozhi, who has been in jail since May 20, said the special court did not consider in the proper perspective the June 20 Supreme Court order that it look into her bail plea after the framing of charges. The gravity of the charges was extensively argued in the Supreme Court, which only after considering all these issues gave her liberty to seek bail after the framing of charges.
However, she said, the special judge failed to appreciate the binding order in the correct perspective and wrongly rejected the bail application again on the very same grounds, touching on the petitioner's role, the magnitude and grave nature of the case, etc. The special court denied her bail on untenable grounds, namely, her higher status as MP. “Neither Section 437 Cr.PC. nor the Constitution discriminates between different classes of women especially on the basis of [their] status in society. It is a benefit given to all women irrespective of their status.”
Moreover, the petitioner has a minor son aged about 9, who has been craving for the company of his mother for the past six months.
Referring to another finding recorded by the trial court — that the February 13, 2009 meeting of the board of directors of Kalaignar TV, at which managing director Sharad Kumar was authorised to raise funds from Cineyug Films up to Rs. 200 crore, was attended by him and her, Ms. Kanimozhi said this observation was contrary to record. For, she had not attended the meeting and she produced a copy of the minutes. Further, she said, she was associated with Kalaignar TV only for a short period, between June 6 and 20, 2007, and as such had nothing to do with the alleged transaction of Rs. 200 crore.
Ms. Kanimozhi said she had no role in the alleged conspiracy in allocation of UAS licences and valuable and scarce spectrum in various telecom circles, and grant of other undue favours to Swam Telecom during 2007-2009. Neither she nor Kalaignar TV was a beneficiary of spectrum licence. Moreover, she was only a minority share holder with 20 per cent.
Ms. Kanimozhi said there was no question of her tampering with witnesses or documents as she was also relying on the very same statements and documents filed by the prosecution. Maintaining that her continued incarceration would amount to pre-conviction detention, she said refusal of bail was an indirect process of punishing her before she was convicted.
