Ramkumar bail plea: High drama in court

As the proceedings commenced, commotion prevailed as advocates present were seen vying with each other to intervene in the case. City public prosecutor M L Jegan argued that the bail plea moved by advocate G Krishnamurthy on behalf of Ramkumar was not maintainable as the advocate had no locus standi in the case. 

He submitted that there was no scope for the advocate to have obtained the accused Ramkumar’s consent as he was lying unconscious in the hospital for the past two days and thereafter was moved to Puzhal prison. The advocate for his part claimed that he has submitted a memo of appearance and hence the plea had to be heard since an innocent person’s life was at stake.

However, amidst the din that prevailed throughout, Principal Judge Jayachandran, pointing out to the suspicion raised by the City Public Prosecutor, posted the case for further hearing to July 15. It may be noted that since there is no need for advocates to file a vakalath while filing a bail plea be it a civil or criminal case, the process has come to be misused. 

Also, even with the memo of appearance by advocates not requiring the client’s signature, the advocates resort to filing bail pleas at random, with the person involved not having an inkling of who the advocates are. It is said that though as per the rule only a single bail plea can be moved, there have been instances of as many as 20 bail pleas accompanying a case. 

This is reportedly done to extract money from the said party to withdraw the case. One of the intervening petition moved by advocate R Krishnamurthy sought to assist the prosecution in enabling a free and fair trial in the case.