Hearing on an anticipatory bail application filed by him adjourned
The Madras High Court Bench here on Wednesday extended, until further orders, an interim order restraining the 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.
It 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 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 on government lands making an illegal gain of Rs. 44 crore. The offence was committed with the connivance of Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited officials, during the previous Dravida Munnetra Kazhagan regime.
Rebutting the contention, Mr. Gopinath contended that Mr. Dayanithi was only a dormant director with absolutely no involvement in the company’s day-to-day affairs.
He said that Balasubramanian, a present director, was arrested and later released on bail. The prosecution did not press for his police custody for interrogation. Many employees of the firm, including an accountant, three office assistants and a storekeeper, were arrested. The police did not seek their custodial interrogation.
“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,” counsel said. Mr. Rao argued that the contentions raised by the petitioners had been 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 filed without any change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the first.