The Infosys techie Swathi who got murdered in daylight in Tamil Nadu came under projection when its prime suspect Ramkumar’s bail plea got rejected by the Principal Session Court in the city on Wednesday. Counted as one of most heinous crime ever committed in Chennai, the accused found in an appropriate sought after search operation conducted by Tamil Nadu Police Department, a day ahead of the incident.
The sole reason for rejection being the authenticity of the petition filed for bail, which immediately raised questions to Justice G Jayachandran. Suspect’s lawyer has no right to appear in front of the court so the filing of a petition is merely a publicity stunt and not more than that. Moreover, the criminal lawyer did not seek permission from the family of the accused before filing the petition. Therefore, keeping everybody in the mist was the sole aim. City Public Prosecutor M L Jagan successfully convinced the judge thus rejecting the bail plea of prime suspect/accused Ramkumar.
READ: Terrorist Encounter in Jammu-Kashmir
In fact, the lawyer appeared in court behalf of Ramkumar was not the same who defended him on Day 1 which stirred up more doubts among the prosecutors. The prime suspect who tried onto convincing judge that he got attacked when Police went on further investigation in his hometown Meenakshipuram. But later on, it was finalised that Ramkumar slits his wrist so as to escape from arrest.
After one incident after another, letting such criminal free on bail was nowhere in question for the Judge. Ramkumar’s lawyer G Krishnamoorthy continued arguing that his subject was assaulted during the interrogation, but prosecutor reverted that when he was completely unconscious after being nabbed by the Police.
During the hearing on July 6, 2016, several other advocated tried to interfere in a bail application, but Judge G. Jayachandran refused to hear the bail plea as Public Prosecutor was under serious doubt along with full proof of evidence.
Amid much hue and cry, the criminal lawyer was asked to apply an affidavit in a mode to reply the intentions of the prosecutor thus adjourning the court’s hearing on July 15, 2016.
