The Madras High Court today dismissed the bail petition of US-based international antique dealer Subhash Chandra Kapoor who was arrested by Tamil Nadu police in 2012 in connection with theft of idols from two ancient temples in the state.
Justice S Vaidyanathan, who dismissed the bail plea, the fourth by the accused, said if the petitioner was released on bail it would result in prolongation of the trial as there was every likelihood of him fleeing from the clutches of law and also tampering the evidence and witnesses.
Kapoor, arraigned as accused No. 12 by the Idol wing CBCID, was arrested on July 14, 2012 after being extradited from Germany following his detention there on a Interpol red corner notice against him.
A person of Indian origin, Kapoor, who owns Nimubs Imports and Exports company based in New York, has been charged with smuggling antique idols belonging to Varadaraja Perumal Temple at Suthamalli village and Arulmigu Pragadeeswarar Temple at Stipurndan village Ariyalur district.
Advocate General A.L. Somayaji, opposing the bail plea, submitted that the accused was involved in the theft of 28 idols of Hindu deities belonging to 11th and 12th century Chola period.
He further said the accused was a habitual offender and he deals in trafficking several antique idols. Eighty per cent of the idols in his "ART OF THE PAST" gallery in New York were seized by the Homeland Security Officers of New York.
Counsel for Kapoor submitted that the Red Corner Notice was only an information and it has got a power to restrain the accused and does not confer any absolute power to arrest.
He further argued that Indo-German extradition treaty had nothing to do with the case and only Indo-American extradition treaty would prevail.
Neither the American Embassy nor the relatives was informed about the arrest, he claimed adding that the accused was entitled to statutory bail.
Rejecting bail, the Judge said "I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner could have been accepted if the confessional statement has not been made by him before the learned Magistrate under 164 Cr.Pc. And if the same has been made before the police."
On the contention that for more than one and half years there was no progress in the trial of the case, the Judge said reply from German government was awaited for commencement of trial and hence no fault can be attributed on the part of the prosecution for such delay.
The Judge further said "the petitioner has been detained after a great difficulty and he being a foreign national, is answerable for the idols which were kept in his possession. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of bail at this stage," he ruled.
