Lawyers do have a duty to perform, that is to represent a client.
It must not be forgotten that crimes, especially white collared in nature should be punished
Jethmalani argues in legalese forgetting to answer his conscience.
Not that there are no answers to his argument.
He says has Kanimozhi
‘at any stage interfered with it? Have you at any stage run away from police investigation? Have you made yourself scarce, have you refused to attend a hearing in court? ‘
He wants evidence of intention.
214 crores, is it peanuts to be transferred?
It is not merely not ‘making yourself scarce’ but lying about 214 crores.
‘I am innocent’ is her refrain.
She can not tamper with evidence?
That’s a laugh!
Common sense tells me otherwise.
Jethmalani is welcome to defend a host of criminals.
He must remember he has lost the moral right to speak on Right and Wrong .
Law with out Morality is Obscene.
Read some of his gems relating to Kanimozhi 2 G scam.
Story:
Frankly yes, because bail has nothing to do with the merits of a case. Merits of a case are relevant to a very small extent. The extent to which they are relevant is simply this, unfortunately most lawyers and a greater number of judges don’t know this – everytime you hear that gravity of the offence is a very relevant factor….
I agree with you that the gravity of an offence is relevant but they don’t understand, it is relevant to what? It is relevant for the purpose of finding out whether bail is likely to be misused. If you are charged with a small traffic offence you are not likely to leave the country and run away. But if there is a grave offence where you’re likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment or death, or for a very respectable man even a sentence of seven years, or eight years or ten years, it may be a great temptation either for absconding or for
tampering with evidence. Therefore when you say that the gravity of the offence is relevant, what the legal ignoramuses don’t understand is, that it is to be judged by only from one viewpoint – is it likely to provide a temptation or a provocation for absconding or tampering with the evidence?..
Not at all. That possibility also is not a theoretical possibility of tampering with evidence or absconding, that way such a possibility exists in every case, when a man is released on bail. But it must be a reasonable possibility. But the prediction of a reasonable possibility has to be based upon your previous conduct. Have you at any stage interfered with it? Have you at any stage run away from police investigation? Have you made yourself scarce, have you refused to attend a hearing in court? But throughout the investigation, the police did not find it necessary to keep them in custody and they were quite happy with their conduct.
Related
