Thread by @indialegalmedia

#SupremeCourt hearing pleas by former AIADMK minister KT Rajenthrabhalaji accused in a government Job scam case. He was arrested on 5th Jan 2022, after he had moved the Apex Court challenging the rejection of his anticipatory bail by the Madras HC.

Case Name- KT Rajenthrabhalaji Vs State of Tamil Nadu
#Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi arguing for the State for Tamil Nadu opposing the maintainability of his Habeas corpus plea under Article 32. And challenge to Anticipatory bail which became infructuous after he was arrested.

Mukul Rohatgi- statements recorded under S 164 CrPC will show that there is evidence against the Minister. It was the State Agent who promises the victims to pay money against the Job. There are at-least 10-15 witnesses in every case.

Rohatgi- Two complaints, one by Raveendran, and one by the State Agent.

Js Kant- we have Zero tolerance against the Corruption charges and we want to know whether there was any political vendetta.

Rohtagi- If it was a case of Vendetta then the complaint should have been given at the earliest.

CJI- Politics will be there. This matter was filed after dismissal of the anticipatory bail.

Rohatgi- The High Court dismissed anticipatory bail on 17/12/2021.

Js Kant- That’s is why we want the State to place the record before the High Court. We want to know why the house of the Advocate was raided by the Police. According to the report it’s says “his wife was generous to open the door and inspect the house” is this the way?

Rohatgi-if the complainant became turtle then it doesn’t mean that other statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC could not be considered. Which is recorded in two crimes in case of Raveendran and other was in Case of Advocate of State Agent.

Rohtagi- A person who is absconding does not entitle to be any relief. Why could he not appear before the Police. He is a Public person. It is unfortunate that this happened on 5th January, 2022. Look at both sides.

CJI- If we are looking at one side then we should have granted bail last week only.

Rohatgi- See the events, there are 31 witnesses. And 8 statements under S 164, which could not be brushed aside. See the nature of proceedings.

Rohatgi- The Anticipatory Bail order was infructuous as the remand order was in place. He could have only challenged the remand order. How can a petition under article 32 lie for grant of bail? It is not the FIR without a jurisdiction.

Rohatgi- Even the Habeas Corpus will not lie if there is a valid remand order. I have circulated the police diary which shows that money was received by him in his house. How can a court entertain this kind of petition? People have sold their jewellery to pay money to him.

Rohatgi- We have 32 complaint as of today. There are several judgments of this Court that a Habeas Corpus petition will not lie for the grant of Bail. In Case of Niharika 2021, SCC Online 3151.

Rohatgi- Another Case is of 2019, 5 SCC 266, where the Delhi HC granted interim bail under 226, this Court set aside that order observing that there was valid remand order. There are other two other order by Justice Khanwilkar passed in 2019.

Rohtagi- If this is the position and none of his petition, whether anticipatory bail petition which is become infructuous. He can go only for quashing before the High Court. He is not entitled to get any relief in any of his petition from this Court.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave for the Petitioner- as far as case of Cheating there is no inducement from the side of the Minister. There is a political vendetta. There is no case against the minister either in 406 IPC or 420 IPC. It is a case of political vendetta.

Dave- Police is using the criminal to turn out against me. There are series of cases against the complainant.

Dave- There are judgments of this Court saying that if Anticipatory Bail is rejected then the accused may not be arrested immediately and we have written a letter to the Superintendent of Police. We moved this Court and the case has been listed after the winter vacation.

Dave- What would happen if he not been arrested for one week. The Court should come down heavily on the State.

They have filed a counter, only allegation is this that you knew this boy. The learned Magistrate not even given us the Copy of the remand order.

CJI to AAG Tamil Nadu- We have passed an order in the Writ Petition. Mukul Rohatgi said we haven’t passed the Notice. What does it mean? Do we have to say that Notice Issued when we have passed an order?

Dave- If you gonna take away citizens right like this, nobody is safe then.

Dr Aristotle for State of Tamil Nadu- he has been Taken to Madurai Jail and Shifted to Triuchi Jail.

CJI- Jurisdiction is Madurai Jail. I don’t understand. The Issue is becoming very complicated now.

Dave- There are two jails in Madurai.

CJI- Mr V Krishnamurthy do you want to file any affidavit on the bail application?

AAG - Yes we will pass.

CJI- We will pass some orders.

Js Kant- The fact that you didn’t issued any notice to him. The way you arrested him. The way you taken him 300 away from Madurai. Did he requested to be taken to good jail in Triuchi.

CJI- is your jails are over crowded in Madurai. Why you are not decongest the jails.

Dave- there is one week holiday in Tamil Nadu. They overreach your lordships court. They are telling citizens don’t go to the Supreme Court. We have moved the Apex Court on 20/12/2021.

#SupremeCourt #Order

CJI- issue notice in the writ petition also. The Detailed order will be passed. After the anticipatory bail dismissed by the HC the petition was filed before this Court. The matter was listed on 6/01/2022, by the time he was arrested on 5/01/2022.

CJI- It is seen that petitioner’s advocate made a representation to the Superintendent of Police.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued for the State of Tamilnadu, Vehemently against any relief to the petitioner.

CJI- We have been informed by the counsel for the petitioner that he was taken to jail which is 300 away from the Madurai.

CJI- We have given certain directions to decongest the jail in offences less than 7 years or less serious offences. In view of that We grant bail to the petitioner for a period of four weeks on a condition that he will not leave the jurisdiction where the crime was registered.

CJI- He should surrender his passport. The order should be communicated to the Concerned magistrate/duty magistrate.

CJI- Concerned Magistrate/In-charge magistrate to release him tomorrow