2 SC judges recuse from hearing Kanimozhi's bail plea

New Delhi, Jun 17 (PTI) Two judges of the Supreme Court,
who were scheduled to hear on Monday the bail plea of Dravida
Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) MP (Member of Parliament) Kanimozhi,
an accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, on Friday
recused themselves from the hearing.
Instead, Justice G S Singhvi, whose bench has been
monitoring the case, will hold a special hearing on Monday
along with Justice B S Chauhan to decide the bail applications
of Kanimozhi and Kalaignar TV Managing Director Sharad Kumar.
According to informed sources, Justices P Sathasivam
and A K Patnaik conveyed their decision to recuse to Chief
Justice of India S H Kapadia, following which he constituted
another bench with Justice Singhvi.
Earlier in the day, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation)
filed an affidavit in the apex court opposing the bail pleas
of Kanimozhi and co-accused Sharad Kumar on the ground that if
released, they could tamper with evidence and influence
witnesses.
The investigating agency contended Kanimozhi and Kumar
were key conspirators and Rs 200 crore transferred to
Kalaignar TV was part of the "bribe" amount and not a loan
as claimed by the accused.
The agency said since investigation into the 2G case is
at an advanced stage, it will not be proper for the apex court
to grant bail to the accused.
CBI submitted the special CBI court and later the Delhi
High Court had carefully evaluated various material evidence
and other factors to refuse bail to them.
The apex court had on June 13 asked CBI to explain where
the Rs 200 crore, allegedly diverted to DMK-owned Kalaignar TV
in 2G scam, has gone and also to file a response on their bail
pleas in a week's time.
A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar
had also asked CBI to come out with a status report on the
loss to the state exchequer due to the award of 13 licences to
one of the telecom operators and trial proceedings in the CBI
special court.
Kanimozhi and Kumar had moved the apex court seeking bail
on June 10 challenging the Delhi High Court verdict rejecting
their bail on the ground that they have strong political
connections and the possibility of them influencing witnesses
cannot be ruled out.