Court allows A. Raja to visit Tamil Nadu
Raja had moved the plea seeking permission to visit Tamil Nadu as the court, while granting him bail on 15th May, had imposed certain conditions, including that he would not visit his home state without its prior permission.
Special CBI Judge O P Saini allowed the plea in which the DMK MP had said that he had not visited Tamil Nadu for the last over one-and-a half year.
Raja had sought court's permission also on the ground that the trial proceedings would not be undertaken from 9th June to 30th June owing to summer vacation.
"A Raja is allowed to visit his home state Tamil Nadu from June 8 to June 30 subject to conditions as were imposed upon him in the bail order dated May 15," the judge said.
The DMK MP was granted bail by the court holding that his further detention would not serve any purpose as all the other 13 co-accused are already out on bail.
The court had imposed several conditions on Raja including a ban on his visit to Tamil Nadu as well as the Department of Telecom (DoT) which he presided over as minister for over three years.
The court had directed Raja not to make any inducement, threat or promise, either directly or indirectly, to any person acquainted with the case.
It also asked Raja to surrender his passport with it and said he should remain present before it during the hearing. The court while enlarging Raja on bail had directed him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 20 lakh with two sureties of the like amount.
The court had said that if Raja wants to remain absent during the hearing, he will have to take its prior permission and in case of "unavoidable circumstances", he shall immediately give intimation to the court and the CBI about it.
Arrested by the CBI on February 2 last year, 49-year-old Raja, the main accused in the Rs 30,000 crore 2G scam had moved his first bail application only after all the other co- accused were granted bail in the case.
Raja had sought bail, saying the Supreme Court, while granting bail to former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, had not distinguished the case of public servant from others. He had submitted that he and Behura were facing similar charges of abatement, conspiracy and criminal breach of trust.