Kanimozhi's bail plea hearing posted to May 30

May 24, 2011 11:33 am | Updated November 17, 2021 02:53 am IST - New Delhi

DMK Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi at the Patiala House Court in New Delhi. Delhi High Court had asked the probe agency to file a status report detailing the stage of investigation and the judicial proceedings in the case on the next date of hearing. File Photo

DMK Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi at the Patiala House Court in New Delhi. Delhi High Court had asked the probe agency to file a status report detailing the stage of investigation and the judicial proceedings in the case on the next date of hearing. File Photo

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the CBI on the bail petitions of DMK MP Kanimozhi and Kalaignar TV director Sharad Kumar, who are in custody in the 2G spectrum allocation case. It also posted the matter for further hearing to May 30.

Justice Ajit Bharihoke issued the notice, after briefly hearing senior counsel R. Shanmugasundaram and counsel V.G. Pragasam, appearing for Ms. Kanimozhi, and senior counsel Altaf Ahmed for Mr. Kumar. The judge asked the CBI to file a status report, detailing the stage of the investigation, the role of the two accused and the judicial proceedings in the case at the next hearing.

In her appeal filed on Monday against the CBI Special Court's order dated May 20, she said she had “no role in the alleged conspiracy in the allocation of the Unified Access Services (UAS) licences, the valuable and scarce spectrum in various telecom circles and other undue favours to M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. [A-6] during 2007-2009. She is only a 20 per cent shareholder of Kalaignar TV and has no active role in its operations, management of offices and operations of the channel.”

Ms. Kanimozhi said she was entitled to merely furnishing bail bonds in terms of Section 87/88 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which she was willing to do. Once the judge applied his mind to the materials available before the court on April 25, took cognisance of the case and decided to issue only summons, the next step (for him) was to proceed as per Section 309 (2) of Cr.PC by accepting bail bonds from the accused and grant bail. “It is well settled that no court has any inherent power of remand of an accused to any custody.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.