The Madras High Court Bench here on Wednesday extended, until further orders, an interim order restraining Madurai district police from executing a non-bailable arrest warrant issued by a lower court last month against Durai alias Dayanithi Alagiri, son of Union Minister M.K. Alagiri, in the multi-crore granite scam and adjourned the hearing on an anticipatory bail application filed by him to Tuesday.
Justice C.T. Selvam passed the order as arguments advanced by senior counsel V. Gopinath appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as Supreme Court senior lawyer L. Nageswara Rao representing the prosecution along with Advocate General A. Navaneethakrishnan remained inconclusive at the close of the working hours of the High Court on Wednesday.
The interim order was originally passed by Justice T. Mathivanan on October 18 when it was contended on behalf of Mr. Dayanithi that a judicial magistrate at Melur near here ought not to have issued the arrest warrant when an anticipatory bail application as well as another petition filed with a plea to quash the First Information Report in the case were pending in the High Court.
According to the prosecution case, Olympus Granites, a company in which Mr. Dayanithi was one of the Directors, had quarried illicitly in government lands thereby making an illegal gain of around Rs. 44 crore. The offence was allegedly committed with the active connivance of officials of Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, a State owned mining company during the previous Dravida Munnetra Kazhagan regime.
However, rebutting the contentions, Mr. Gopinath contended that Mr. Dayanithi was only a dormant Director of the company with absolutely no involvement in its day-to-day affairs. He also said that one Balasubramanian, a present Director of the company, was arrested by the police and later released on bail. But the prosecution did not press for taking him under police custody for interrogation.
Similarly, many employees of the firm who were actively involved in the affairs of the company including an accountant, three office assistants and a storekeeper were arrested. But the police did not seek custodial interrogation of any of them. “They want this accused (Mr. Dayanithi) alone to be interrogated for reasons best known to them though there is nothing to be recovered or investigated further,” the counsel said.
On the other hand, Mr. Rao argued that the contentions raised by the petitioners were already considered and rejected by Mr. Justice Mathivanan who dismissed Mr. Dayanithi’s first anticipatory bail application on September 25. This was the second application and it had been filed without there being any change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the first, he pointed out. EOM