Her police were successfully prevented from implicating the Junior Acharya in another foisted case

By their preemptive and timely action, the Kanchi Math counsel successfully prevented Jayalalithaa’s police from implicating the Junior Acharya in another foisted case.

The Junior Acharya would not be implicated in the case, the police told the Madras High Court on Feb. 4. The Public Prosecutor told this on behalf of the Police when the anticipatory bail application from the junior Acharya in the case came up before the High court. Recording the statement made by the Public Prosecutor, the judge dismissed the advance bail application.(the senior Acharya who has already been implicated in the case, has obtained bail in the High Court).

In his order, Mr. Justice Thanikachalam said: “The Public Prosecutor made a statement that the petitioner is not going to be arraigned as an accused in this case. The statement is recorded. This being the position, the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be taken into custody for non-bailable offence, appears misconceived. The petition is dismissed.”

The judge also reserved orders on the bail application from the junior Acharya in the first case. The Sessions court in Chengalpet had rejected his bail plea last week. In the present application, the Junior Acharya contended that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect him with the case. The entire case was built up on the statement of an approver without other material for corroboration from sources. Moreover the Senior Acharya had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. While granting the bail, it had observed that “prima facie a strong case has been made out for grant of bail.” The charge-sheet had been filed and the probe was also over, the petitioner added.

The Public prosecutor said that besides the confessional statements, he had no other evidence to connect the junior Acharya. When the Judge sought to know whether the prosecution had any proof for the charge made against the Junior Acharya, and if so, he wanted it to be circulated to him, the Public prosecutor agreed to furnish the evidence. The Judge then reserved the orders.