Hearing on the bail application of the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, was put off to October 7 by the Karnataka High Court, leading to a brief protest by a group of advocates outside the court hall on Wednesday.
Vacation judge Justice Rathnakala adjourned the hearing, saying that in her considered view, the appeals should be heard by a regular bench.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai filed its objections to the plea for suspending the four-year sentence imposed on Ms. Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case and to grant of bail.
Prosecution opposes grant of bail
G. Bhavani Singh, who was the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) appointed by the Karnataka Government to conduct the trial of the disproportionate assets case against Ms. Jayalalithaa before the special court, filed the objections to her bail plea, as the Tamil Nadu government, through the DVAC, on Tuesday appointed him as the SPP for conducting the case before the High Court.
While opposing the plea of Ms. Jayalalithaa for staying her conviction, it has been contended in the objections that Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give powers to the courts to stay the conviction but power is vested with the courts to suspend execution of sentence and release of convict on bail.
Earlier, advocates representing Ms. Jayalalithaa and her convicted aides were taken by surprise due to the absence of Mr. Singh, when the judge wanted to know why Mr. Singh, who had appeared on Monday, was not present in the court. However, the confusion was put to rest as Mr. Singh entered the court by then.
The court hall witnessed a few unusual scenes during the hearing of Ms. Jayalalithaa’s petitions. When the judge dictated the order adjourning the hearing, one of the lawyers representing an accused said “no…no...no…” in a loud voice, but other advocates stopped him from saying anything further.
After the judge exited from the court hall, some lawyers, who were among a large number of those who arrived from Tamil Nadu to witness the hearing, shouted that “they would remain in the court hall as injustice has been caused to them due to adjournment of the case.”
However, police personnel with the help of other advocates handled the situation patiently.
