TTV Dhinakaran supporters get advance bail
They said there was a large scale irregularity in awarding of tenders for executing major road projects in the state.
Chennai: The Madras high court has granted anticipatory bail to rebel AIADML MLAs P.Vetrivel and Thanga Tamil Selvan, who apprehended arrest in connection with a case registered against them for allegedly preventing the police from discharging their duties at the secretariat on March 1.
Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandra granted anticipatory bail to Vetrivel and Thanga Tamil Selvan on the condition that they should appear before the Thallakulam police in Madurai daily for two weeks.
According to petitioners, after the internal split in the AIADMK party, they joined the faction of AIADMK (Amma wing) headed by general secretary V.K.Sasikala and deputy general secretary TTV Dinakaran, due to which they were disqualified as MLAs.
The ruling faction of political party to take revenge on the rival faction has been indulging in filing false criminal cases against the active members of the other faction of the political party, they added.
They said there was a large scale irregularity in awarding of tenders for executing major road projects in the state.
The said tenders have been awarded to close relatives of politicians in the ruling faction of the party. In this connection, the petitioners had on March 1 gone to secretariat to meet officials of the department concerned. While the second petitioner went inside the secretariat, the first petitioner was surrounded by the media at the main gate.
While the petitioner was attempting to address the media as to his visit, two inspectors posted at the secretariat gate rushed towards him, abused him in filthy language and pushed him and physically manhandled him.
The first petitioner attempted to prevent the assault but could not. The first petitioner tried to convince the police personnel that he was only doing his lawful duty but his attempt did not bear any fruit. While this commotion was going on, one of the police officer received instructions and acted as per the instructions.
The second petitioner was not at all present at the place of occurrence, they added.