Chennai: An advocate has the arduous duty of fighting his client’s cause and such advocates deserve to be protected at all costs to save democracy. If an advocate crossed the Lakshman rekha and indulged in wrong-doing, identifying himself with the client, the court could not show indulgence, observed the Madras high court. Justice P.N. Prakash made the observation while dismissing an anticipatory bail petition from advocate Jayakumar, allegedly involved in usurping a piece of property belonging to a doctor in Pammal, near Chennai airport.
“This court was shocked to find that the evidence collected by the police against Jayakumar is, indeed, very damaging and incriminatory in nature, and it does not merely disclose the offence of trespass but other serious offences of fabrication of evidence as well, which cannot be easily brushed aside,” the judge added. Advising leaders of the bar to ponder over how they planned to protect the institution from assault from within, from members of the legal fraternity themselves, the judge said, “I hope leaders do not play God and support their delinquent followers blindly and give illegal protection.”
The matter relates to a property owned by Dr Mohan Gandhi on Pozhichalur main road at Pammal. Since Gandhi had mortgaged the property to Andhra Bank, he borrowed Rs31.49 lakh from Shah Jahan, a real estate agent, for discharging the loan and executed a power of attorney in his favour on June 18, 2010 only as security. He later found that Shah Jahan had sold the property to Uthira Kumar, the prime accused, who subsequently took forced possession of the land. The police arrested three persons when Uthira Kumar’s wife sought anticipatory bail.
The judge, granting anticipatory bail only to the woman and dismissing the remaining petitions, including the one from Jayakumar, said, “This is not an ordinary case of criminal trespass and assault. Before operation eviction, thorough homework appears to have been done by legal brains. The legal system has been illegally manoeuvred to give legitimacy for usurping the property of a doctor. This court has prima facie found signatures of one Kannan, an unknown character, through whom backdated rental agreements and other documents were prepared. His signatures in the memo of appearance differs from the one in the statement by him before the magistrate. Therefore, custodial interrogation of Jayakumar and Uthira Kumar is necessary.”
