2G spectrum scam: DMK MP Kanimozhi,7 others denied bail

The court said charges levelled against the accused are very serious in nature,having “grave implications for the economy of the country”.

“I am satisfied that no case for bail is made out for any of the applicants/accused,” Special Judge O P Saini said.

The trial in the 2G scam will now begin on November 11.

Brushing aside Kanimozhi’s plea for bail under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code on grounds of being a woman,the court said,“Accused Kanimozhi Karunanithi belongs to the upper echelons of society and is also a Member of Parliament. By no stretch of imagination,she can be said to be suffering from any discrimination on the ground of being a woman.”

Special Judge Saini dismissed her bail application,along with those of four others – Sharad Kumar,Karim Morani,Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal — even though CBI had no objection to their release on the ground that they face trial for offences,entailing a maximum jail term of only five years,if convicted.

The agency,however,had opposed the bail pleas of the other three accused Shahid Balwa,Chandolia and former Telecom secretary Siddharth Behura.

Regarding Shahid Balwa and Chandolia,special public prosecutor U U Lalit had told court they should be denied bail as maximum punishment for the specific charges levelled against them was seven years.

Opposing Behura’s bail plea,Lalit had said he was earlier indicted with charges punishable up to seven years of jail term whereas now he is also charged under section 409 of the IPC,carrying maximum life term on conviction.

The court rejected CBI’s stand saying,“There is no distinction between the accused charged on the basis of main chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet. There is only one chargesheet in the eyes of law.”

The court also dismissed the pleas of various accused for bail on the ground that they had been languishing in jail for over five to nine months,while the trial was unlikely to conclude in near future.

“It is repeatedly submitted that these reasons make out good ground for bail to the accused. I have bestowed my careful and anxious consideration to these submissions. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case,these factors may be relevant consideration but in some cases it may not be so,” Saini said.

The court said after framing of charges under “a more serious” section of 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust) which carries life imprisonment as maximum punishment,“there is no favourable change in the case of the accused”.

Senior advocate Altaf Ahmed,appearing for Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar,had said as per the June 22 order of the Supreme Court,both of them could approach the special court seeking bail after framing of charges. The court had framed charges against all the accused on October 22.

Morani’s counsel Siddharth Luthra had sought bail saying his health condition was not good and that the probe against him was complete and charges too have been framed.

Shahid Balwa’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal had said he was willing to deposit his 55 per cent share in Etisalat DB with the court as pre-requisite condition for bail.

Arguing on bail pleas of Asif and Rajiv,Aggarwal had said these two were in custody for the longest time as far as the supplementary chargesheet is concerned.

Senior advocate Aman Lekhi,appearing for Behura,had claimed that CBI was discriminating among various accused in the case by not opposing the bail pleas of some of them for political considerations.

Besides these accused,the court had also framed charges against Raja,DB Realty MD Vinod Goenka,Managing Director of Unitech Ltd Sanjay Chandra,Reliance ADAG top executives Gautam Doshi,Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair and telecom firms Reliance Telecom,Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt Ltd.

The court had found prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial against all accused in the case.

Accused may be kept in custody till evidence is over: court

The victim and witnesses should feel secure to tell the truth and for that accused might be kept in custody till their evidence is complete,said the special court,dismissing the bail pleas of DMK MP Kanimozhi and seven others.

“If the witnesses do not gather courage to tell the truth before the court,the tripod (of accused,victim and witness) would break down and truth will not come out and cause of justice would suffer,” Special CBI Judge O P Saini said.

“One way of generating the sense of security in the mind of victim and the witnesses is to keep the accused in custody till their evidence is complete,” he added.

He said the courts have to strike a balance between liberty and rights of accused and safety and security of the witnesses to ensure fair trial.

“In the given case,victim and witnesses may be from the same group or family or they may be totally unconnected as one may be victim or witness by a quirk of fate or just by unfortunate circumstances.

“Victims and witnesses cannot be left to their own fate while protecting the rights of the accused. They also must have a sense of security and safety and must have a feeling that no harm would come their way by just being witness in a case and disclosing the truth before the investigating agency and the court,” the judge said.

Brushing aside contentions of the 2G accused that there was no apprehension of witnesses being influenced or evidences being tampered with,the court said witnesses would be “under a lot of pressure” in view of the “unprecedented nature” of this case.

The judge said,“Every criminal case is a dyad or triad constituted of accused,victim and witnesses… the rights of the accused are very important in our criminal jurisprudence and they are required to be protected under all circumstances…”

“There is no doubt that continued and unnecessary incarceration of an accused is violative of his rights. If an accused is required to be kept in custody during the trial,the reasons for the same must be valid,both in law and fact.

“Having said that,I may also record that the rights of victim and witnesses are also no less valuable and are required to be protected equally during the trial,” the judge said.

The court observed that rights of accused,witnesses and victim should be protected fairly and over emphasis on any one may result in subversion of justice.

“Over emphasis on the rights of one or the other may result in subversion of justice. A proper and balanced view is the demand of the situation,keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,” the court said.