Solar scam: Joppen's bail plea dismissed
By Express News Service | Published: 23rd July 2013 10:55 AM |
The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the bail plea of Tenny Joppen, former aide of Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and the third accused in Solar scam.
Justice S S Satheesachandran passed the order and observed that the offence involved in the case was serious in nature as the petitioner was the personal assistant attached to the office of the Chief Minister. He had also assisted and aided other two accused - Saritha S Nair and Biju Radhakrishnan, who cheated many across the state.
It also said that since the petitioner was highly influential, if released on bail, chances of him tampering with the evidence cannot be ignored.
The Special Investigation Team arrested Joppen on charges of cheating on the basis of a complaint filed by Sreedharan Nair before the Konni police station, earlier. In his complaint, Nair stated that Joppen, in association with Sarita and Biju, had cheated him of `40 lakh, promising to set up a solar power plant at his company in Palakkad.
The accused persons had offered a plot of land at Kinfra Park in Palakkad to install a solar energy plant with full assistance from the government. He was taken to the office of the CM, where he had talks with the CM and other officers.
According to the petitioner, he was not a party in the cheating case and was not liable to be proceeded for the offence. The police did not seek his custody after his arrest, the petitioner pointed out. Advocate General K P Dandapani submitted that the direct involvement of the petitioner with the other two accused had been disclosed by the materials collected during the probe. His release on bail may hamper the investigation.
The call details of the petitioner with Saritha and Biju and the transaction carried out in his bank account are yet to be probed. At this stage, absence of specific particulars over the role of the petitioner in the complaint made cannot be given much significance.
The court observed that there was sufficient room to doubt the petitioner’s complicity in the offence with other two.
The argument by the petitioner that the complaint does not spell out specific allegation against him, there is no need to give much significance for it, the court said.