By IANS,
New Delhi: It was at 3.45 p.m. when Justice V.K. Shali entered court number 35 in the Delhi High Court and immediately announced bail for DMK leader Kanimozhi and four others in the 2G spectrum allocation case.
The order was sudden because the judge before adjourning the case at 1 p.m. had said the hearing will resume at 3.30 p.m.
As the order was read out granting the five bail — on par with the others released by the Supreme Court Nov 23, surprise and elation were written on the faces of their families and friends present in court. Most were clearly not expecting this announcement.
Relatives of the five accused jumped up in joy.
There was commotion as everyone hugged each other. They congratulated each other and smiled in happiness.
DMK leader T.R. Baalu and the relatives of the other accused rushed out of the courtroom to Patiala House Courts — a 10-minute walk away, where the trial in the 2G spectrum allocation case is going on.
In the lower court, the trial had ended, but the accused were still present, waiting in hope. Balu rushed to Kanimozhi to share the “good news”.
The 43-year-old Rajya Sabha member, who was sitting with her husband, shared a special smile with him. It was her fifth attempt to get bail.
She also spoke with the other accused and their relatives.
Cineyug Films’ Karim Morani was not able to contain his happiness as he jumped from the chair, while Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa’s wife started sobbing in happiness.
Allowing bail to Kanimozhi and four others, Justice V.K. Shali said all the five bail “applications are allowed keeping in mind the Supreme Court recent verdict” giving bail to five corporate executives accused in the case.
“In my view, it will be violation of article 141 of the constitution, which lays down the High Court being the subordinate to the Supreme Court must show compliance and the respect to the orders of the apex court,” the order said.
The five accused were asked to furnish a personal bond of Rs.5 lakh each with two sureties. The court directed all the accused to surrender their passports and said “they must appear whenever they are called” before the court.
“Most of the evidence against the petitioners is documentary evidence and there is in my view no prima facie evidence or likelihood which may persuade the court to doubt that the petitioners have reason to believe that they may create conditions which may not be conducive to hold free and fair trial,” said Justice Shali.