Court allows A. Raja to visit Tamil Nadu
|
Raja
had moved the plea seeking permission to visit Tamil Nadu as the court,
while granting him bail on 15th May, had imposed certain conditions,
including that he would not visit his home state without its prior
permission.
Special
CBI Judge O P Saini allowed the plea in which the DMK MP had said that
he had not visited Tamil Nadu for the last over one-and-a half year.
Raja
had sought court's permission also on the ground that the trial
proceedings would not be undertaken from 9th June to 30th June owing to
summer vacation.
"A
Raja is allowed to visit his home state Tamil Nadu from June 8 to June
30 subject to conditions as were imposed upon him in the bail order
dated May 15," the judge said.
The
DMK MP was granted bail by the court holding that his further detention
would not serve any purpose as all the other 13 co-accused are already
out on bail.
The
court had imposed several conditions on Raja including a ban on his
visit to Tamil Nadu as well as the Department of Telecom (DoT) which he
presided over as minister for over three years.
The
court had directed Raja not to make any inducement, threat or promise,
either directly or indirectly, to any person acquainted with the case.
It
also asked Raja to surrender his passport with it and said he should
remain present before it during the hearing. The court while enlarging
Raja on bail had directed him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 20 lakh
with two sureties of the like amount.
The
court had said that if Raja wants to remain absent during the hearing,
he will have to take its prior permission and in case of "unavoidable
circumstances", he shall immediately give intimation to the court and
the CBI about it.
Arrested
by the CBI on February 2 last year, 49-year-old Raja, the main accused
in the Rs 30,000 crore 2G scam had moved his first bail application only
after all the other co- accused were granted bail in the case.
Raja
had sought bail, saying the Supreme Court, while granting bail to
former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, had not distinguished the
case of public servant from others. He had submitted that he and Behura
were facing similar charges of abatement, conspiracy and criminal breach
of trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment