Karnataka High Court on Tuesday denied bail to former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case.
Earlier, Special Public Prosecutor G Bhavani Singh had said that the prosecution had no objection to her being granted conditional bail.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani who appeared for Jayalalithaa in the bail petition filed before the Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday argued she would not abscond, and that she was a law abiding citizen of the country.
He had also raised questions on some of conclusions drawn by judge John Michael Cunha in convicting her in the disproportionate assets case.
Resuming regular functioning after the vacation break, the High Court began hearing arguments in Jayalalithaa’s application bail case around noon, in the midst of protests and tight security.
Singh had filed objections against Jayalalithaa’s bail plea. Singh had said that that being an influential person in Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa may try to leave the country if granted bail.
Jethmalani refuted the prosecution’s objections and told the High Court that she would not abscond, and told the court that she was 66 years old, a diabetic and was suffering from blood pressure and heart-related ailments.
Former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa’s supporters in tears after Karnataka HC rejected bail appeal
Former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa-(File pic)
Former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav too was released on bail by the Supreme Court after he was convicted in fodder scam, Jethmalani pointed out. Jayalalithaa had not indulged in any acts that warranted cancellation of her bail during pendency of trial, he argued.
Ram Jethmalani also said that Jayalalithaa is entitled for bail during pendency of appeal against conviction as per verdicts of Supreme Court on the subject of grant of bail after conviction.
Jethmalani raised questions about the conclusions drawn by the judge Cunha in two instances. First, in the case of Namadhu MGR newspaper, the deposit slips relied on by the prosecution had been declared lost by the accused and later recovered. Jethmalani had said that the judge had not enlisted experts in verifying the recovered documents.
Similarly, the value of the properties under construction had not been assessed by experts. Lawyers for the others convicted in the case argued that the value of the disproportionate assets had not been calculated.
Sasikala’s lawyer Amit Desai argued that there was no witness to establish that Sasikala was acting as the benami for Jayalalithaa.