01 nov 2011
2G case: Prosecution made concession to Kanimozhi, four others, CBI tells court
The court’s specific questioning to the CBI on the Special Public Prosecutor’s stand was prompted by senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani, who brought to the court’s notice the fact that the agency had opposed the bail plea of his client – in this case, Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra – as also the bail pleas of four other corporate honchos in the case. They include Swan Telecom Director Vinod Goenka and Reliance ADAG executives Hari Nair, Gautam Doshi and Surendra Pipara.
Mr Jethmalani’s contention led the Supreme Court yesterday to question the CBI on whether or not the Special Public Prosecutor had opposed the bail pleas of Ms Kanimozhi and the four other accused.
The CBI told the court that although the public prosecutor hadn’t opposed the bail pleas of Ms Kanimozhi and the others, it was left for the trial court to decide on the matter. The Special CBI court in Delhi, which is hearing the 2G case, has reserved its verdict on these bail petitions and has fixed November 3 as the date for pronouncement of the order.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court reserved its order today on the bail pleas of the five corporate honchos. It also came down heavily on the media for distorted reporting of court proceedings.
“We wish to express our deep anguish over the distorted reporting on what happened in court on Monday. It is most unfortunate and regrettable. It is an attempt to brow beat the court. Another attempt is made to tarnish the image of CBI and Special Public Prosecutor. Some day they (media) will be in trouble. We are heading for that”, the court thundered.
The stinging observations against the media came after some papers reported that the Supreme Court had questioned the CBI’s stand of not opposing the bail pleas of Ms Kanimozhi and others. This, when the court had just asked the CBI to inform it on whether the Special Public Prosecutor had opposed the bail petitions or not.