kanchi-sathya.org - information on the kanchi seer, latest news on the the seer trial, facts about the kanchi mutt

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI 104

Crl.M.P.No.11752 of 2004

In Crime No. 859 of 2002
(on the file of E-5, Foreshore Estate Police Station, Chennai)

Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal ………..Petitioner/Accused

Versus

State
By ES Foreshore Police Station
Chennai
Now investigated by
Addl.S.P.,P.E.W
Kancheepuram …….Respondent/Complainant

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I, K.G.Rajkumar, son of K.Govindappa Reddiar, Hindu, aged about 54 years, having office at Tiruthani Road, Tiruvallur Town, Tiruvallur District now temporarily come down to Chennai do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur Sub-division, Tiruvallur District and now appointed as Investigating Officer in the team of officers formed to investigate the above case and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. I perused the above petition and deny all the allegations found therein excepting those that are specifically referred to and admitted herein.

3. It is respectfully submitted that there are absolutely no merits in the above Petition.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the above application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

5. It is respectfully submitted that none of the grounds raised in the above Petition is sustainable.

6. It is respectfully submitted that the averments contained in Ground Nos. 1 to 3 that “on false allegations the Petitioner was arrested and that he had been falsely implicated in the case for ulterior reasons and that he is in no way connected with the occurrence” are incorrect and hereby denied. The contention that his arrest after two years of occurrence while in custody in another case will speak volumes is untenable. There are sufficient materials to connect the Petitioner with the offence and there is no ulterior motive for the arrest of the Petitioner.

7. The contention in Ground No.4 that the Petitioner will not abuse or misuse his liberty if he is ordered to be released on bail is untenable. The Petitioner had already misused his position and tampered with the evidence in respect of crime registered in Cr.No. 914 of 2004 and if he is let out on bail the prosecution will be greatly prejudiced. The conduct of the Petitioner in organizing fake surrender in Cr.No. 914 of 2004 will speak volumes against the Petitioner in this regard. The fact that he influenced his own employee Sundaresan who is to figure as a witness in Cr.No. 914 of 2004 to give him a good conduct certificate by filing false affidavit before the Honorable High Court when the Petitioner moved bail petition and the way in which the accused who had given 164 statements in Cr.No.914 of 2004 were perused to retract the same making false allegations against the police would clearly establish that the Petitioner wields great power and influence.

8. It is respectfully submitted that even when he is in custody in connection with the Sankararaman murder case in Cr.No. 914 of 2004, he was able to influence the witnesses to support his case and the co-accused to retract their 164 statements. If he is allowed to come out on bail, he will definitely interfere with the course of justice by tampering with the evidence in this case also. He had influenced not only his employee Sundaresan to give him a good conduct certificate in the affidavit filed by him but also influenced accused Kathiravan to retract his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Petitioner also influenced Accused Kathiravan to give him a good conduct certificate in the bail application filed by him in Cr.No. 914 of 2004.

9. The contentions found in Ground No. 5 are untenable. Proper and sufficient care has been taken regarding the health condition of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is being examined by the doctors attached to the Prison two times every day. The Ground No.5 will support the case of the prosecution that proper medical attention is given to the Petitioner. Therefore there is no justification for seeking bail on health ground.

10. It is respectfully submitted that Ground No.6 is untenable and incorrect. Only because the Petitioner was under the impression that it was Radhakrishnan who was sending letters under the Pseudo name Somasekara Ganapatigal attacking the character of the Petitioner and alleging misuse of the office of the mutt, the Petitioner developed hatred towards Radhakrishnan and instigated the offence which resulted in the brutal attack on Radhakrishnan, his wife and his servant. The allegation that Radhakrishnan had been visiting the Mutt at Kanchipuram even after the attack on him is false and hereby denied. Radhakrishnan ceased to visit the Mutt for the last more than five years. After the attack on him he visited the Mutt only once to pay respect to the Samathi of Paramachariar, that too, when the Petitioner was out of Kanchipuram.

11. The contention found in Ground No.7 is incorrect and untenable. The claim of the Petitioner that he is having crores of followers throughout India will prove that he is powerful and influential. The contention that because he is having crores of followers he will not abuse or misuse the liberty if he is released on bail is incorrect and untenable.

12. The contention found in Ground No.8 is incorrect. The allegation that in fact hearing the news that he would be arrested he went to Andhra Pradesh and prolonged his stay there and he made arrangements for his escape to Nepal. Therefore the allegation that he will not abscond or make himself scarce is untenable.

13. It is respectfully submitted that there are absolutely no merits in the above application and the same is liable to be dismissed. If the Petitioner is released on bail he will tamper with the evidence. He will also escape from the clutches of law by flying to Nepal.

14. It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has to examine several other persons who are the inmates of the Mutt as well as persons connected with the Mutt and record their statements. The release of the Petitioner at this stage will affect the investigation.

15. Under these circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss the above application for bail and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai, this
3rd day of December 2004 and signed
his name in my presence. Before me,

Advocate, Chennai