A Dialogue

Original Post Anil Kumar 8:30pm Aug 25 മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ കണക്ക് പ്രകാരം പതിനഞ്ചു കോടിയില്‍ പരം രൂപയും. ചീഫ്‌വിപ്പ്: കണക്ക് പ്രകാരം ആയിരം കോടിയില്‍ മുകളില്‍, എന്നിട്ടും ഈ തട്ടിപ്പ് നടത്തിയ രണ്ടുപേര്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ പുറത്തു. ശ്രി എം എല്‍ എ മുരളിധരന്‍ പറഞ്ഞത് പ്രകാശം പരത്തുന്ന രണ്ടുപേര് പുറത്തു പോയി ബാക്കി രണ്ടു പേര് എപ്പോള്‍ വേണം എങ്കിലും പുറത്തു പോകാം എന്ന്. കോടതി അപ്പോള്‍ അന്യായ വിധി അല്ലെ നടപ്പകിയത്. View Post on Facebook  Comment History Prof. Alex Odikandathil Ph.D. 10:38pm Aug 25 No. If it was for Krishna Iyer, he would have said "NOOOO" A fundamental right cannot be disposed of casually with the cryptic order: "Bail denied". Good reasons must exist for denial. The constitutional emphasis was made clear in Balchand (1977): "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail not jail". Here we need to understand three things: (i) Bail is a fundamental right (ii) The norm is bail not jail (iii) Good reasons, with full explanation in writing must exist for denying bail. Building on this, in 1980, the Parliament added to Section 437 of the CrPC that even in the most punishable cases, special consideration must be given to juveniles under 16 years, WOMEN, the sick and the infirm. There are times when all these are lost by judicial amnesia, though. The English common law rule (now modified from 1984) is 'no arrest without a charge'. In India, we follow the Imperial Raj Law that custody may extend to 60 or 90 days in the absence of a charge sheet. Judicial custody orders after charge are possible but should be avoided. Swayed by the blitz of publicity and their own biases, judges treat an accused as a convicted criminal even though he is innocent until proven guilty (see Kashmira (1977)). In this day and age, the four major concerns about bail can be easily met, namely: about the accused (i) absconding (ii) noncooperation with the police during investigation (iii) intimidating witnesses and (iv) tampering with evidence.In the case under reference, granting bail to the accuse d is the only lawful thing to do. Thanks. Anil Kumar commented on his post in Ente Chengannur ~ എന്‍റെ ചെങ്ങന്നൂര്‍. Anil Kumar 11:18pm Aug 25 ബഹു: അലക്സ്‌ സര്‍ പറഞ്ഞത് പൂര്‍ണമായും അങ്ങികരിക്കുന്നു. എന്നിരുനാലും പൊതുജനത്തെ കബളിപ്പിച്ചു തട്ടി എടുത്ത പണത്തിനു ഇതുവരെ ഈ അറസ്റ്റ്‌ ചെയ്യപെട്ട വ്യക്തികളുടെ സ്വത്തുകള്‍ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ കണ്ടുകെട്ടിയില്ല(പതിനഞ്ചു കോടി രൂപ മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ കണക്ക് പ്രകാരം) . എന്നിരിക്കെ ഇത്രയും നാള്‍ നമ്മള്‍ കണ്ട സമരവും മറ്റും പൊതുജനത്തിനു ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടിക്കാന്‍ വേണ്ടി അല്ലാരുന്നോ.

Prof. Dr. Alex Abraham Odikandathil	2:34 PM (3 minutes ago)
to Reply

Thank you Mr. Anil Kumar. I agree with you on the point that the properties of the accused may be attached until the disposal of the case. And I am solidly behind you when you say that the agitation surrounding the case was unwanted, serving no useful purpose, and wasting the public money with no regard to any established norms. The tragedy is that the opposition in India, no matter who that is, resort to such unfair practices causing much inconvenience to the public at large. It very seldom happens in any advanced, industrialized countries.

RIP

Apostle Paul wrote of the apparent end of his own life and said in Second Timothy 4:6-7, “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” 

As Paul looked back over the years since he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul said that he had accomplished three things: “have fought a good fight, have finished the course, have kept the faith.”

Remember:

If one continues to fight the fight of faith, he will be able to look forward to the same thing that Paul was looking forward to. A reading of Second Timothy 4:8: “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” Paul did not look for rewards in this life. His hopes for the future were entirely tied up in what the Lord would say to Him in the next life.

I think, so were you, Mr. John; 
RIP.