CHENNAI: Holding that the court cannot restrain the police from proceeding in accordance with law and that the plea seeking blanket protection against possible future action was premature, the Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by senior DMK leader V Senthilbalaji and his brother RV Ashok Kumar seeking protection against alleged harassment by the DVAC and the city police.
Dismissing the petitions, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the court cannot restrain the police from proceeding in accordance with the law if the petitioners have committed any offence. The plea seeking blanket protection against possible future action was premature, the judge added, and dismissed the petitions.
During the hearing, Public Prosecutor John Sathyan submitted that the petitions sought a vague and omnibus relief, contained several allegations, and therefore required a detailed counter affidavit.
Appearing for Senthilbalaji and Ashok Kumar, senior counsel NR Elango submitted that although the petitioners had obtained anticipatory bail in the alleged horse-trading case, they apprehended arrest in some other case.
The brothers filed the petitions, contending that the FIR, registered on the complaint of Uthangarai MLA N Elaiyaraja, was based on an alleged WhatsApp call involving an offer of Rs 35 crore and threats.
They submitted that the High Court had granted them anticipatory bail after holding that custodial interrogation was not required and that they had been complying with the direction to appear before the Triplicane police daily and cooperate with the investigation.
The petitioners also alleged that PWD and Sports Minister Aadhav Arjuna had publicly stated that there were "scores to settle" over the Karur stampede that claimed 41 lives at a rally attended by TVK chief and Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay. They further contended that, according to social media reports and investigative journals, there were political instructions from the top to arrest them before the impending by-elections.
Seeking relief, they prayed for a direction restraining the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the Greater Chennai Police from harassing them under the guise of search, inquiry, or investigation in connection with multiple criminal cases pending against them.
They also sought a direction to the police to issue a proper written notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, as mandated by law, if their presence was required in any pending or proposed case.