#Judiciary - the recent observation and ruling by Apex,in a…

using the RTI tool initiated action; an interim order of the Honorable High Court,grants bail,and,this is extended for a period of 3 weeks, a day before the day the accused had to surrender to the superintendent of prisons - friends of the accused move for regular bail as it's

over 90 days - the interim order extending the time period was served both at the prison and the lower court on the same day, as directed orally by the HC. The APP in the lowecourt ensures that the order is not seen by the presiding officer (it may be possible the judicial

officer would have thought other wise ,but no bail not granted because the respondent and the prosecution state in writing that the accused has disobeyed the orders of the HC and bail denied. The HC on the day of final disposal, deines to regularise the bail as the PP lies to the

Courts that the Final Report is filed - the HC not only denies bail, but asks the lower court to proceed and dispose the case as quickly as possible. Under RTI ACT 2005, the police claim that there are no records of the objection raised by them in the case diary , but the lower

Courts gives a certified copy of the same; 4 years later the defacto complainant seeks the direction of the HC to have the police file the final report, which is objected to by the accused and the court stated seek relief in the lower court on a petition already filed for

discharge. The HC ignores the earlier order of the same court by a different Judge denying bail on grounds of the final report having been filed and here the PP states 2 more witnesses are to be examined - remember the court doesn't state - additional charge sheet here. When the

Lower court is questioned , they state the police u/s.167 of Cr.P.C. had filed the final report citing this order - this gets murkier when no subpenae is issued and received by the accused, under the RTI Act give 2 different names /time and also later state that 2 subpeonae can't

be issued on the same; now the issue is thin ground for the prosecution and judiciary and a petition under the Act seeking details of the presiding officers, the staff on bench on duty in those specific dates and the petition cites life and death situation, allowable under the

Act. The PP on the 1st occassion, is the infamous SARAVANAN ANNADURAI of DMK; in the lower courts it's KANDASWAMY(permission to prosecute him criminally has been granted by the Director of Prosecutions,day before yesterday and another is one Padmanabhan and on the other one at

MHC is one Maharajan, was promised elevation to the Bench by none other than the famous MP who sang // Kashmir, beautiful Kashmir// in the parliament. Names of the presiding officers and the 2 judges are not mentioned here - one of them is a strong DMK nominee.
#TruthwillPrevail

@bgopu1973 @RudraVS @Dharmic_Jana @aakuvan @CETMoorthy1 @jananisampath - if you're willing to do a story I'll give you all the papers. #JaiHind

@UshaNirmala aplogies for the late tag