The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on an anticipatory bail petition filed by DMK MLA V. Senthil Balaji in a criminal intimidation case booked against him on the basis of a complaint lodged by Karur Collector T. Anbalagan on May 16.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar deferred his verdict after hearing elaborate arguments advanced by senior counsel S. Prabakaran who claimed the complaint was motivated and State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan who accused the MLA of continuously acting in a high-handed manner.
The petition, originally filed before the Madurai Bench, was transferred to the principal seat of the High Court in Chennai and Justice Kumar had on Thursday granted time till Tuesday for the Thanthoni Malai police in Karur district to respond to the plea for advance bail.
Accordingly, the SPP told the court that the MLA was facing more than 10 criminal cases and it had become a casual practice for him to commit an offence and obtain anticipatory bail from the court. He claimed that the MLA had been behaving as if he was above law.
In his complaint, the Collector had accused the MLA of barging into his office with around 25 people on May 12 despite being informed that only four people would be permitted inside in view of the physical distancing norms to be followed to fight COVID-19.
The complainant also alleged that the MLA had picked up a quarrel with him for not inviting him to the surprise inspections conducted by the Ministers in the district. It was further claimed that the MLA had intimidated the Collector before the leaving the office.
Mr. Anbalagan had also stated in his complaint that the MLA addressed the press after meeting him and told the journalists that the Collector was an educated fool and that the latter would not be able to move around if he does not mend his ways.
Referring to another altercation that had taken place between him and the MLA during the by-election to Aravakurichi Assembly constituency in April 2019, the Collector said, the MLA should be made responsible if any mishap occurs to him or his family.
Denying the allegations, the MLA, in his advance bail petition, stated that a false complaint had been lodged against him due to petty differences and political spite solely because he had questioned the official regarding non-usage of his constituency development fund.
