HC grants bail to mineral sand mining baron

The Madras High Court bench today granted bail to mineral sand mining baron V Vaikuntarajan and his brother in a disproportionate wealth case filed against former V.O.C.Port Trust Chairman Subbiah who is now the IT Secretary in West Bengal.
Justice P N Prakash, who granted the bail, said he would give the detailed order in two days.
The Judge wondered why main accused Subbiah had not been arrested so far though the case was registered in 2012 and why a confessional statement was not got from his brother. Even a constable of a local police station would get it in such cases, he said and sought to know why CBI had not done so.

CBI had filed a case against Subbiah, charging him with earning disproportionate wealth of Rs 8.23 crore and that V V Minerals partners Vaikuntarajan and his brother had given the bribe through a fake land deal, for which documentary evidence was available.
The Judge wondered why CBI had not acted against the official in such a sensitive case after filing an FIR in 2012. He had been promoted as IT Secretary and there was every chance he would become even Cabinet secretary, he said.
The Court had on November 7 last dismissed the anticipatory bail of the duo, following which they applied for it again.

The Judge said that so far as the disproportionate wealth case was concerned, the petitioners were 'abettor's abettors' and the law does not prevent granting bail to them.

Senior Counsel for Vaikuntarajan, Gopal Subramanian said the main case had been filed against Subbiah. His client and his brother had been charged with helping the port trust chairman amass wealth. "They had only abetted the crime and their crime is bailable offence."
He said CBI had issued summons to the brothers and then withdrawn it. So, there was no need for custodial interrogation.
CBI counsel and Additional Solicitor General G R Swaminathan contended that both the brothers had helped Subbiah amass disproportionate wealth. They had made a fake land deal and given money for it, which was actually valued at several times more than stated.

He recalled that the court had earlier dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The same situation prevailed now and he should not be granted bail. The summons were withdrawn because of court directive to do the same.
The judge pointed out that the main accused had not been arrested so far and said the way CBI functioned in this case was surprising.
When the CBI counsel said some of the petitioner's men had resorted to intimidation and showed an FIR filed in connection with it, the Judge said he would ask the magistrate to cancel the bail in case of such intimidation.