Finding no fault with the trial judge and the Delhi high court’s orders refusing bail to DMK MP Kanimozhi and co-accused Sharad Kumar, the head of party-sponsored Kalaignar TV, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed their pleas for bail in the 2G scam case with a rider that the trial court could consider it, but only after charges had been framed.
The order, by a bench headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi, who is monitoring the probe into the multi-crore-rupee scam, virtually blocked the chances of not only Ms Kanimozhi and Mr Kumar getting bail in the immediate future but also that of the other accused, including former communications minister A. Raja, his aide R.K. Chandolia, former telecom secretary Siddhartha Behura, five corporate honchos, and Shahid Balwa and his cousin, till framing of charges by the trial judge.
Since the probe agencies are yet to complete their investigations, specially with regard to the foreign transactions, and the CBI yet to file another supplementary chargesheet, the process for framing of charges might take a few months. The special bench of Justices Singhvi and B.S. Chauhan, created to hear Ms Kanimozhi and Mr Kumar’s special leave petition, said there was no “infirmity” in the impugned orders. “We have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. In our view, the reasons assigned by the special judge and the high court for refusing to entertain the petitioners’ prayer for bail do not suffer from any legal infirmity,” the apex court said in a brief order. Ms Kanimozhi and Mr Kumar had moved the SLPs in the top court after Justice Ajit Bharioke of the high court had dismissed their petitions on June 8 and upheld the order of special judge O.P. Saini, conducting the trial in the 2G scam case.
The apex court refused to entertain the plea of Ms Kanimozhi’s counsel, Mr Sushil Kumar, to give her special consideration as a “woman” and the mother of a child under CrPC Section 437 — which provides for certain concessions in bail to women and old and infirm persons — as the order made it clear that she could seek such relief only from the trial court after charges had been framed.
“Liberty is given to the petitioners to file fresh applications for bail before the special court after framing of charges. In her application, petitioner No. 2 (Ms Kanimozhi) shall be entitled to again invoke the provisions of Section 437 of the CrPC. The fresh applications filed by the petitioners shall be decided by the special court without being influenced by the rejection of the earlier applications,” the bench recorded.