Jailed All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam supremo Jayalalithaa will have to stay in prison for at least 6 more days as the vacation bench of the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday posted for October 7 hearing on her pleas for suspension of the sentence and immediate bail in the disproportionate assets case.
As Jayalalithaa sought immediate relief, the Court on Tuesday first posted the hearing for Oct 6 but hours later listed the matter for Wednesday after her counsels pleaded for urgent hearing.
When the matter came up before the vacation bench judge Justice Rathnakala, Jayalalithaa's counsel Ram Jethmalani pleaded for suspending the sentence pending appeal under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for her release on bail.
Section 389 states that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended. Also, if the person is in confinement, that he or she be released on bail, or on own bond.
During the brief hearing, Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh filed the objections to Jayalalithaa's pleas and also a memo about his appointment as the SPP in the case.
Singh, who was SPP in the Special Court in the disproportionate assets case, had told the court on Tuesday that he had not yet received any official notification appointing him as the SPP for the criminal appeal filed in the High Court.
As Singh sought more time, the judge had first posted the matter for hearing on October 6, which was later rescheduled for Wednesday following pleas by Jayalalithaa's counsels.
Jayalalithaa's aide Sasikala, her relatives V N Sudhakaran, disowned son of the former chief minister and Ilavarasi will also have to spend at least 6 more days in jail as their petitions for bail and suspension of the sentence were also adjourned for October 7.
The high court is on Dasara holidays from September 29 to October 6. October 7 is also a government holiday on account of Bakrid.
In her petitions seeking immediate bail and challenging her sentence, Jayalalithaa has maintained that the charges of amassing wealth against her were false and that she had acquired property through legal means.
Jayalalitha has also contended that the trial court has overlooked several judgements and has not considered the binding nature of various income tax orders and decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the income and the level of expenditure pleaded by her.
