High Court had directed AIADMK MP to deposit Rs.10, 27,504
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered deletion of a condition imposed by the Madras High Court directing AIADMK Member of Parliament N. Jothi to deposit Rs.10, 27,504 while granting anticipatory bail to him in a criminal case.
A Bench of the Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran deleted the direction on special leave petitions filed by Mr. Jothi challenging the High Court final order dated December 14, 2007. It disposed of the SLPs after hearing petitioner’s counsel Guru Krishnakumar and senior counsel for the State Altaf Ahmed.
The Bench, in its brief order, said, “The appellant submits that the condition should not have been imposed as it is not a case where the complainant has made any claim against the appellant accused. There is also some confusion as to whether counsel for the appellant volunteered to deposit such amount or whether the said amount was specified at the instance of the State counsel and counsel for Intervenor. Be that as it may. The appellant is a sitting MP and this condition is unnecessary to ensure his presence. So we delete the first condition imposed by the High Court regarding deposit of the above mentioned sum by the appellant.
As a consequence, the second condition is also modified directing the appellant to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25, 000 with one surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. In other respects, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”
In his SLPs, Mr. Jothi said that a frivolous private complaint was filed alleging that though he was not the government counsel he had travelled by air from Chennai to Delhi on tickets issued by the State Public Works Department as counsel before the Cauvery Tribunal and stayed in Tamil Nadu House in Delhi and thereby caused wrongful loss to the government.
He said that the High Court had failed to consider that for the offences alleged in the FIR, the court could not recover/direct deposit of the amounts alleged in the FIR as a condition to grant anticipatory bail.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu