Today 23.02.2022 Former ADMK Minister Mr.D.Jayakumar bail petition come up for hearing before the Hon’ble 16th MM Judge at GT Court (George Town Court). Mr.A.Natarajan Senior advocate (Former State PP) appeared for former minister. Initially the 16th MM court judge refused to hear the bail petition and informed that he is going to adjourned the matter to some other day since he is just an incharge judge not the regular judge. But Mr.A.Natarajan vehemently objected the same and requested the judge to
Today 23.02.2022 Former ADMK Minister Mr.D.Jayakumar bail petition come up for hearing before the Hon’ble 16th MM Judge at GT Court (George Town Court). Mr.A.Natarajan Senior advocate (Former State PP) appeared for former minister. Initially the 16th MM court judge refused to hear the bail petition and informed that he is going to adjourned the matter to some other day since he is just an incharge judge not the regular judge. But Mr.A.Natarajan vehemently objected the same and requested the judge to
hear the bail petition today itself. But still the concerned judge did not agree. Therefore Mr.A.Natarajan went to the 3rd MM judge at GT Court who is the administrative head of full GT court. 3rd MM judge after hearing the argument of Mr.A.Natarajan directed the 16th MM judge to hear the bail petition and pass the orders by today itself.
After that Mr.A.Natarajan argued the case before the 16th MM judge and he even played the entire video of the incident that was available in the social media. He informed the court that this case was foised only out of political vendatta and no offence, no overtact made out against the former minister therefore section 324 and 506(2) IPC will not attract against former minister, so other offences are bailabale offences. Mr.A.Natarajan argued that as per section 43 of Cr.P.C any person who is not a police officer has also got power to arrest any accused. Hence in this case the former minister had just arrested the accused and produced to the nearest police station. As a law abidder he did this and he has got right to do it so no offence will made out in such act. He also argued that there are more than 10 cases pending against the complainant of this case one Mr.Naresh and he was also convicted once. He also argued that the complainant voter id falls in the 49th ward but whereas the incident happened in 51st ward. The complainant has no duty to come to this ward that too during polling time. So Mr.A.Natarajan informed that as a law abiding citizen the former minister arrested the person as per section 43 Cr.P.C and produced him to the nearest police and his shirt was removed to tie his hand as he a notorious accused involved in more than 10 cases it will endager the life of the former minister and the public at large so only to safeguard himself and public the complainants shirt was removed and with that his hands were tied. He also said police registered this case hurryly to satisfy their bosses as irrelavant sections are included in the FIR which shows total non-application of mind by the police.
Inbetween of the argument former Minister Jayakumar was produced in the 16th court under PT warrant for remanding him in another case. Whereas Mr.A.Natarajan also objected that this is not correct to allow the remand of a person in a mechanical way and all the offence charged in the second FIR is bailable so no remand can be permitted. He also informed the court that second FIR was charged with section 188 IPC whereas hon’ble madras highcourt in Jeevananthan Vs state had catogorically settled the law that police got no power to register the FIR u/s.188 IPC.
Thereafter Assistant Public Prsecutor placed her argument and she informed the court that sections in the FIR is altered to 307 IPC. So she informed that the magistrate court has not power to grant bail in 307 cases as only sessions and highcourt can grant bail.
Mr.A.Natarajan vehemently objected for the alteration of FIR and informing the same at fag end of the argument. He also request the court to appoint an advocate commisisoner to verify the injury of the complainant. He informed that the complainant is freely roaming in the Hospital and being in-patient only to defeat the bail application.
Mr.N.R.Elango senior counsel argued for the intervenor.
After hearing all the argument the learned judge passed over the case for passing order in both cases.
From 11 AM to 1 PM the argument went on.
