Madras HC dismisses MLA Jagan Moorthy’s anticipatory bail plea
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Madras HC dismisses MLA Jagan Moorthy’s anticipatory bail plea
Madras HC dismisses MLA Jagan Moorthy’s anticipatory bail plea. The abducted boy’s elder brother married out of his caste and it was with a woman belonging to Theni district. The marriage was reportedly against the wishes of her family. Moorthy is the president of Puratchi Bharatham party, which is an ally of the main opposition party, the AIADMK. He is an MLA representing KV Kuppam Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu’s Chennai.
The abducted boy’s elder brother married out of his caste and it was with a woman belonging to Theni district and the marriage was reportedly against the wishes of her family.
M Jagan Moorthy, also known as “Poovai” Jagan Moorthy, is the president of Puratchi Bharatham party, which is an ally of the main opposition party, the AIADMK. Moorthy is an MLA representing KV Kuppam Assembly constituency.
When the advance bail petition came up for hearing before Justice M Jayachandran, senior counsel S Prabakaran, underlined malafide intention and political motives for the prosecution’s allegation of kidnapping against the petitioner.
Jagan Moorthy is a political leader and therefore, many people visit him and seek his help. When the accused approached him, he only asked them to meet a lawyer and take legal advice.
The petitioner never met the complainant, groom and bride. As per the direction of this court, he gave a statement to police. He is ready to cooperate, he is a public figure, and he will not run away, Prabakaran added.
Vehemently opposing the plea, Additional advocate general J Ravindran submitted that the petitioner had actively participated in the crime. “He was the master brain.” Without his participation, kidnapping would not have occurred. When the accused sought help, he said he would do it and photographs were available to this effect.
Ravindran said custodial interrogation was necessary. During enquiry by the police, the petitioner gave an evasive reply and did not cooperate. When the police went to his house, nearly 300 people prevented the police from discharging their duty. There were other records, which had to be shown to him as part of the probe.
Therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary. The accused met him before the commission of crime. This court’s order should be a guiding factor to others, he added and requested the court to dismiss the petition.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.