Want to be with son,Kani pleads to SC in vain

Kanimozhi,who has been in Tihar jail since May 20 for alleged involvement in the 2G spectrum scam,asked through her lawyer Sushil Kumar whether continued remand was meant to be “punishment before conviction” for her. Kumar reminded the Supreme Court that his client was a person of “high standing” who was not expected to play foul.

To this,the Special Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and B S Chauhan observed,“In this case,the Sovereign is the victim,it has suffered. Even state players are involved.”

The lawyer complained that “in prison I (Kanimozhi) am treated like other convicts”,to which the Bench said it is only expected — “It happens to all convicts.”

“But I am a woman… a woman,my lords,” Kumar pleaded in reply,bowing low.

A half-hour recess later,the Bench delivered a short,crisp order that Kanimozhi is “entitled” to apply for bail in the Special Court using the leeway criminal law allows for women prisoners against long incarceration,but only after the Special Court has framed charges in the 2G case.

Kanimozhi and Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar approached the apex court after their bail pleas were rejected by both the Special Court and the Delhi High Court.

Sharad Kumar too can apply for regular bail in the Special Court after charges are framed.

“Now they cannot apply for bail till the investigation is over and charges are framed,” Supreme Court-appointed Special Public Prosecutor for the 2G case,senior advocate U U Lalit,told The Indian Express.

The hearing began with senior advocate Altaf Ahmed,appearing for Kumar,revealing that the last time the CBI “interrogated” his client and Kanimozhi was on March 11,about three weeks after it raided Kalaignar TV premises in Chennai on February 17 and 18.

“Therefore our continued remand for the purpose of the investigation is just not required. They say that bail will allow us to hamper the investigation,but it is because we cooperated that there is a chargesheet… that we have been arraigned as accused in the case,” Ahmed said. He said that the only reason for not giving them bail is the CBI’s “general,unsubstantiated argument that we will tamper with the evidence”.

“This argument is vague. They have till date not shown which witness or which evidence or material is exposed to tampering,which requires us to be in custody,” Ahmed said.

“Refusal of bail should not be a method to punish the accused before conviction. Even former IMF chief (Dominique) Strauss-Kahn is on bail. He allegedly assaulted a vulnerable hotel worker in New York,but now he is on bail,” he concluded.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar,in his turn,argued that bail was rejected to Kanimozhi because of two crucial oversights the lower courts made. One,they believed that Kanimozhi attended a Kalaignar TV boardroom meeting on February 13,2009 in which the Rs 200 crore “bribe” was first discussed. Two,the DMK MP,who has a 20 per cent stake in the channel,was one of the three signatories to the money transfer from Cineyug.

Kumar said the fact that Kanimozhi had quit as a director of Kalaignar TV on June 20,2007 knocks leaves no reason for denial of bail.

The lawyer said the accused are “hungry” for their freedom. To which Justice Singhvi shot back,“Hungry people do not bribe. None of these people are hungry.”

Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok,appearing for the CBI,said it was too early to grant bail as “the matter is under investigation,and we do not know at what stage what would come out”.

Objecting to the accused’s claim that they had never resisted the CBI probe,the ASG revealed that the agency had still not been able to trace a single “original” document regarding the Rs 200 crore money transfer and the agreements linked to it.

The CBI admitted that all they have with them are photocopies. Even the chargesheet against Kanimozhi is based on these copies,the ASG said.

“Why don’t you recover the originals?” asked Justice Chauhan.

“They are not available,we have not been able to trace them,” Chandhiok replied.

At this point,Ahmed got up to state that these documents are “my inter-corporate loan agreements” and “I need it for my defence”.