Rs Barathi case tomorrow orders mhc for police state pp a Natarajan argued

[5/29, 15:39] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1266310656044658689?s=08
[5/29, 15:39] Sekarreporter 1: Today 29.5.2020 – R S Bharathi’s SC ST Act case came up before Hon’ble Justice M Nirmal Kumar. Totally 3 cases clubbed and heared together

1. State filed Petition under 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed by the magistrate in remand order granting interim bail to Mr.R.S.Bharathi. Along with that 2. Direction petition to surrender and consider thr bail application on the same day filed by the Accused Mr.R.S.Bharathi and 3. Criminal Appeal challenging the interim bail order filed by the defact complainant also came today. State Public Prosecutor Mr.A.Natarajan on behalf of the State , Mr.A.Ramesh senior advocate on behalf of the complainant and Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram senior advocate on behalf of the accused Mr.R S Bharathi appeared in all the above three petitions and made their arguments. State PP Mr.A.Natarajan had vehemently opposed the order of interim bail granted by the Session Judge and stated that without any Bail application, the session judge had comitted a great mistake by granting interim bail to the accused Mr.R S Bharathi in the remand order U/s.167. No provison available in law which gives power to the sessions judge to grant a bail u/s.167 and that too without any bail application before him. State PP also argued that Order passed by the Sessions judge is per se illegal and per incuriam and hence the order has to be set aside. State PP informed that only U/s.439 the session judge has power to grant bail but that too in SC ST Act cases without ordering notice to the complainant, no orders can be passed in any proceedings as per section 15A(3)(5) of SC ST Act case.The sessions judge accepted the case of prosection and stated in his order that prima facie case is made out and thereby remanded the accused until 5.6.2020 susequently in the same remand order the session judge also had included of granting interim bail without ordering the notice to the complainant and without hearing him and also without any bail application before him is totally illegal and contrsry to law. Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram who appeared for the accused Mr.R S Bharathi stated that the word spoken by the accused is not with intention and the word ‘Pitchai’ has different meaning in english. For which state PP informed ‘Pitchai’ means ‘Pitchai’ only and 1000’s of years the word ‘Pitchai’ is in existence and it can be found in tamil literature as “Pitchai – Puhinum Kattral Nandra”, therefore the meaning of the word used in tamil should be seen in tamil only instead relaying on english, chinese, malay language were its meanings will look different. State PP Mr.A.Natarajan also argued that being every one should be aware that the circular issued by the central goverment in year 2018 and also 2017 judgement of Hon’ble supreme court states that the word ‘Harijan’ must not be used and if it used it will clearly amounting to offence under SC ST Act. After hearing an eloborate argument of all parties Justice posted the case tomorrow for pronouncing orders.🍁