Jethmalani speaking to NDTV’s Srinivasan Jain has said that orders of the trial court and High Court are a perversion of the bail law. Jethmalani is defending MP Kanimozhi and Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra.
Jethmalani speaking to NDTV’s Srinivasan Jain (Vasu) has said that orders of the trial court and High Court are a perversion of the bail law. Jethmalani is defending MP Kanimozhi and Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra.
Here is an excerpt of the NDTV interview:
In an exclusive interview to NDTV’s Sreenivsan Jain, Mr Jethmalani has said that the orders of the courts were a perversion of the bail law, and the judges are playing to the gallery. He said he will raise this issue in the Supreme Court.
Vasu: Here is somebody who has been charged with illegal gratification of a public servant of using her influence to lobby for someone who has become the telecom minister.
Jethmalani: When have you found? It has never happened in the history of our Courts that in bribery offences, bail has been ultimately denied to anybody.
Vasu: And it is happening for the first time?
Jethmalani: It happening for the first time, this kind of perverse exercise of bail power.
Vasu: That’s very strong language you are using against the judiciary?
Jethmalani: Of course, I am using this. I have said so and I am repeating this and I will tell the Supreme Court that this is a subversion of our jurisprudence.
Vasu: This is an order passed both by the High Court and the Sessions Court. Even in the High Court, when the bail was refused Justice Ajit Bharihoke said while the arguments of the petitioners appear to be attractive one cannot ignore the history of this case from the recorded evidence that despite collected prima facie evidence of petitioners in deep rooted conspiracy involving corrupt practice by the public servants neither of the petitioners were arrested by the CBI nor were they taken into custody and produced in Court along with the chargesheet.
Jethmalani: It is again the mistake of the Judges to think that an arrest is compulsory. Arrest is compulsory if there is a genuine need of custodial interrogation or to prevent absconding or tampering with evidence. None of these circumstances existed
Vasu: No, here the Judge seems to be implying something even more serious. They seem to be implying that these people are so influential that they managed to pressurize the CBI to not arrest them before the chargesheet was filed. That’s the implication.
Jethmalani: I regret to say this. This is Judges playing to the gallery. This is not attachment to jurisprudence.
Vasu: This kind of comment runs the risk of contempt.
Jethmalani: Of course the Judges are playing to the gallery the media has taken over most of these investigations. On the other hand I appreciate that some offences should have been detected earlier, should have been detected by the CBI itself. There are some offences that the PM must have reported himself. All this has happened but that doesn’t mean that people should not be given bail.
Comments
Commentator
June 8, 2011 - 4:33pmAll what is he wants is to just blindly defend his clients. We understand that all the decisions need to be in line with the statutes, but when it comes to implementing provisions of the statutes, the course is greatly determined by the circumstances. In nut shell, I do not agree with Mr. Jethmalani's stand.
rgarewal
June 8, 2011 - 6:23pmI agrre with Mr jethmalani.......accused should be given bail..and cases should be fast tracked........chargesheets has already been filed how now they can interfere with process of law
rgarewal
June 8, 2011 - 6:23pmI agrre with Mr jethmalani accused should be given bail..and cases should be fast tracked chargesheets has already been filed how now they can interfere with process of law
rgarewal
June 8, 2011 - 6:37pmI agrre with Mr jethmalani accused should be given bail and cases should be fast tracked chargesheets has already been filed how now they can interfere with process of law
Harsh Raghuvanshi
June 11, 2011 - 1:00pmI totally agree with Mr. Jethmalani. The threat is not in the instant case but the precedent which is being laid down. High Profile cases should even be viewed with equality before the law. However as far as the accused being capable of tampering with the evidence is concerned, it is the duty of the Government to Safe Gard when the premium investigation agency is involved and if the accused are still found to be tampering then appropriate action shall be taken but its is not a ground for denying bail to the accused who are not even needed for the purposes of investigation.
satyavachan
June 13, 2011 - 11:33am[edited]. its all document based case , inch by inch IT IS PROVED that those in power were only intersted in minting money for themselves while selling natural resources of country for peanuts n taking false false n frivolous excuses and were bargaining things from [edited] knows how to flirt with true n simple indian people no bail should be given for those who sold their own mother silverware
Add new comment