FORMER UNION TELECOM MINISTER DAYANIDHI MARAN MOVES SC CHALLENGING THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION TO CANCEL HIS BAIL
New Delhi, August 11
Former Union Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to cancel his bail and asking him to surrender in a case related to alleged installation of telephone exchange at his residence
A three-judge bench comprising justices T S Thakur, V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi allowed the plea for urgent hearing of the petition seeking anticipatory bail in the case.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Maran and sought urgent listing of his plea.
The Madras High Court had yesterday cancelled Maran’s interim anticipatory bail in the controversial telephone exchange case and directed him to surrender before the CBI within three days while rejecting his charges of political vendetta.
The High Court held that “prima facie” Maran had “misused” his office by obtaining telephone connections “illegally” and allegations against him were backed by material.
CBI has registered an FIR against Maran and others alleging that more than 300 high-speed telephone lines were provided at his residence here and extended to his brother Kalanithi Maran’s SUN TV channel to enable its uplinking when Dayanidhi Maran was Telecom Minister from 2004-07.
Apprehending arrest in the case, Maran had moved the court and Justice R Subbiah had on June 30 granted him anticipatory bail for six weeks subject to the condition that he appears before CBI on July 1 and cooperates in the investigation.
CBI later moved the high court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigation.
The High Court rejected Maran’s contention that CBI was seeking cancellation of his interim bail only to humiliate him.
The court noted that FIR was registered against Maran in 2013 and that had the agency wanted to arrest him it could have done so when he had appeared before it in January and October 2014 when there was no bail protection. —PTI