Begin typing your search...
No anticipatory bail for woman advocate
Charged for ‘vituperative outburst’ against police for slapping fine on her daughter who violated lockdown restrictions, the accused yet to appear before probe officer; ready to offer apology
A court of sessions in Chennai refused to grant anticipatory bail to a woman advocate who was caught on camera verbally abusing constables attached to the Chetpet police station, for issuing a challan imposing a fine of Rs 500 on her daughter for violating lockdown restrictions.
Principal Sessions Judge R Selvakumar, before whom the plea moved by woman advocate Tanuja Rajan and her daughter Preeti Rajan came up, said: “Very recently, in a case relating to anticipatory bail filed in a similar incident, Justice Anand Venkatesh remarked that assault or wordy quarrel with the police officers cannot be viewed easily since the police are also under pressure given the COVID situation.”
Also, citing the order of the first bench of the Madras High Court, which directed the police to enforce the lockdown strictly, the judge said: “That being so, violation of law, that too, by a legal professional and taking the law into their own hand and abusing the police officials in the vicinity of the general public are all sending a message for forming the wrong opinion about legal professionals.”
“Hence this court is of the considered view that granting anticipatory bail in a case which was widely published and supported with overwhelming evidence may invite adverse comments on the judiciary too,” the judge stressed while noting that the woman advocate at the instance of her daughter had deterred public servants from performing their lawful duties by issuing threats.
The court also set aside the submission that the daughter went to purchase ‘ecosprin’ tablets from a medical shop at Chetpet while noting that there was no need for someone residing behind Ega Theatre in Kilpauk to go to Chetpet, where there are fewer medical shops.
“Ecosprin is not an emergency drug. No document is filed to show the urgency for purchasing medicine, that too, at 7.15 am. On the other hand, the prosecution contends that she was proceeding to the beach to buy fish. The said version appears more probable than the version by the petitioners,” the court added.
It also recorded that despite the duo being issued with a police notice on June 7 they are yet to appear before the investigating officer. The petitioners had submitted that they are ready to offer an unconditional apology.